Lords Sitting of 25 October 1999

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Oxford.

Baroness Harris of Richmond
Angela Felicity Harris, having been created Baroness Harris of Richmond, of Richmond in the County of North Yorkshire, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Baroness Hamwee and the Baroness Maddock.

Baroness Howells of St Davids
Mrs Rosalind. Patricia-Anne Howells, OBE, having been created Baroness Howells of St Davids, of Charlton in the London Borough of Greenwich, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Baroness Amos and the Lord Alli.
The Earl of Meath—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
Lord Catto—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Equality before the Law
2.48 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hillasked her Majesty's Government:
Whether they support further steps to promote equality before the law and the equal protection
2
of the law throughout Europe by means of an additional protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, in principle the Government support the promotion of equality before the law. With regard to the additional protocol, the Government will come to a considered view in the light of its text.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that encouraging, although cautious, reply. Does the Minister agree that there is at present a gap between the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, by which the United Kingdom is bound and which is a strong guarantee of equality, and the much weaker guarantee in the European Convention on Human Rights? Does he agree also that it is in the public interest of this country and Europe as a whole that that gap should be filled by means of the protocol? If not, are there any objections in principle which the noble Lord can foresee in the way in which the protocol is now being worded?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the gaps to which the noble Lord refers are regrettable. Our primary concern in looking at the draft text of the protocol is that there is no exemption for positive discrimination and for other forms of differential treatment which have a reasonable and objective justification. That is our primary problem. Of course, if those issues and others can be addressed, we can make progress with the protocol, which we fully recognise to be extremely important in the development of civil and political rights across Europe.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, does not my noble friend agree that it would be a good idea for the British Government to set an example in this area? We have reasonable legislation on racial and sexual

3
discrimination, but some other countries are not so well blessed. Would it not be a good idea to set an example by supporting the protocol?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. We have excellent legislation in this field. The Labour Government, and Labour in local government, have a proud record in taking forward equality provisions and policies in legislation. We require progress to be made in dealing with the protocol and perfecting the draft so that we can reflect positively on those aspects of it which need to be improved, in particular those which relate to positive discrimination and the need for differential treatment. That will take forward important equal rights objectives.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, without expressing a view on the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, will the Government be wary about signing up to international covenants expressed in general language of principle, without any clear idea as to how such a principle might be interpreted in years to come by foreign judges brought up in different disciplines? Surely there are some lessons to be learnt from our experience with the European Convention on Human Rights.
While on that subject, will the Minister take special heed of remarks made the other day by the United States Supreme Court judge, Judge Kennedy, who said that the more that judges become involved in social and economic decisions, the more they will lose the respect of the public?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we are always cautious in terms of incorporating European legislation into our own, so as to ensure that we protect and advance the British interest. Of course, we have to take account of the views expressed by the noble Lord. It is important for us to make sure that we get things right for our people in our country.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the Government's approach to the review of the race relations and equal opportunity legislation has been very cautious? Does he also accept that, by signing or supporting the protocol to the international convention, we are also giving domestic remedy on this issue which is very much in line with what the Prime Minister said at the Bournemouth conference?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, is right to say that we are cautious; but we are cautious only because we want to get things right. Therefore, it is only right and proper that we give very careful consideration to the way in which we incorporate into our own domestic legislation measures such as Article 14. We share a common objective: to improve the standard and quality of equalities legislation.
Lord Desai: My Lords, in reply to my noble friend Lady Turner, my noble friend said that there were
4
some defects in the international protocol. In avoiding those defects, is he satisfied that we have done everything we can to bridge the gap between the protocol and the European Convention on Human Rights?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we shall continue to make our case very strongly with regard to improving the quality of the protocol because we believe it to be important. We want to get it right. As I said earlier, as it is currently drafted, there is no exemption for lawful positive discrimination. We want to ensure that we can batter away at that and get things right so that the legislation, and the way in which we incorporate the protocol, accurately reflect our interests and our desire to get equalities legislation properly termed and phrased.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, will the Minister take advice from his department about the case law under the European Convention on Human Rights, Community law and the covenant, all of which deal with the problems to which he referred? At the same time, in relation to the observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, will he bear in mind the fact that the Government have the overwhelming support of these Benches, and the country as a whole, for having incorporated the convention and given our judges the responsibilities that it is time they exercised, as is the case in the courts in the rest of Europe and in the Commonwealth?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we are more than happy to take advice and, indeed, more than happy to take encouragement from the Liberal Democrat Benches on these matters.
Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords, does the Minister also accept that there are many who might not agree that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, speaks for the whole of the country? There are many others in the country who believe that positive discrimination is a can of worms. Indeed, it has proved to be so in the United States where the doctrine has been most advanced. On reflection, does the noble Lord agree that it might be better to rest on the principle of no discrimination?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord is, of course, quite entitled to his view.

Prisoners' Voting Rights
2.56 p.m.
Lord Lucasasked her Majesty's Government:
What consequences the Human Rights Act 1998 has for the voting rights of prisoners in the United Kingdom.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, none. Remand and unsentenced prisoners already have the right to

5
vote. We do not believe that the Human Rights Act 1998 requires us to extend that right to sentenced prisoners.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the right under Article 3 of the convention is an individual right and that, therefore, the Human Rights Act gives to an individual prisoner, or another individual, deprived of his voting rights (for whatever reason), the right to pursue the restoration of his voting rights through the courts?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that may well be the case.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the Minister will, perhaps, be able to think of an answer to my noble friend's question while he is listening to mine. I can confirm to the noble Lord that we agree that convicted prisoners should not be able to vote. The noble Lord is entirely right to say that remand prisoners can vote. However, can he confirm that I am correct in my understanding that remand prisoners who do not have an address (a rig ht of abode) are not allowed to vote at present because they do not have an address to register? I believe that the Government have considered whether that should be changed to allow them to vote. Surely anyone on remand should be allowed to vote even if he does not have an address—some people are on remand for a considerable amount of time—and even if his address has to be "care of" Her Majesty's prisons?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Viscount has put his finger on the problem. Remand prisoners may not have registered to vote at the time when they should have done so. For that reason, the Working Group on Electoral Procedures has been carefully looking at ways in which we can improve the situation. I can tell the noble Viscount that a recent survey revealed that just three of about 700 prisoners who were on remand at the time of the last general election managed to obtain, secure and exercise their right to vote. Clearly we need to try to improve upon their access to the right to vote, given the fact that these prisoners are fully entitled to it.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, as we are discussing the human rights of prisoners, does the Minister accept that it would be good to have warders who are better trained than they are at present to cope with the many prisoners who have a degree, though perhaps a low degree, of mental illness?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I understand the noble Earl's question. However, it does not entirely relate to the Question on the Order Paper. We would, of course, wish to encourage all prison staff to assist those who may well suffer from a mental illness, or any other illness, to improve their personal welfare.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what is the policy justification
6
for a blanket ban on voting rights for prisoners no matter how long the sentence, how long they have served or what their record is? Is that really a proportionate interference with the rights conferred by Article 3 of the First Protocol?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that is a novel and interesting question. The Government have always taken the view that those who are convicted and serving a sentence have no moral right to vote. That is and has been our policy position for some time. I believe that it was also the policy position of the previous administration. We hold to that.

Sites of Special Scientific Interest: Protection
2.59 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wathasked her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the present arrangements for the protection of sites of special scientific interest and what consideration is being given to securing the sites' character.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the Government will be bringing forward legislation to ensure the better protection and management of SSSIs in England and Wales as soon as parliamentary time permits. We set out our proposals in The Government's Framework for Action on 2nd August this year. New powers to regulate potentially damaging activities and combat neglect will lead to an improvement in condition for all our SSSIs through better protection and better management.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that his Answer will be greatly welcomed? However, I hope that I may press him further. In view of the remorseless and continuing damage and the inadequate response to that damage over a long period on the part of the previous administration, will the Government urgently seek effective protection of these sites, which by their very nature are essential parts of our natural heritage?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for welcoming my Answer. At present somewhat over half of the SSSIs are in a satisfactory condition and another 15 per cent, while not being in a satisfactory condition, are improving. That still leaves over a third of SSSIs where there is a serious problem which we need to address. The Government have already allocated additional resources, for example, £6 million to English Nature in the current financial year and payments for positive management, and are taking strong measures to ensure that landowners are aware of their responsibilities in these matters. The provision

7
which I mentioned has suggested further legislative and non-legislative measures to improve the position yet further.
Lord Hankey: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that the protection of SSSIs and social, cultural or natural sites depends upon the definition and recording of significance and values and that securing values and significance within the excellent system of development control in the UK requires improvement to our systems in the UK of defining significance and value?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I think that to some extent the noble Lord suggests a different definition of SSSIs than we currently have. We are continuing to review the status of SSSIs, and indeed the number has increased significantly over recent years. As regards our wider development and planning policies, I believe that this Government have demonstrated that we have substantially included the protection of SSSIs in our general planning procedures. For example, in the area of roads policy, for which I am directly responsible, we have rightly reduced the number of SSSIs which would be affected by such developments in our own targeted programme of improvements to the transport infrastructure. The same is true of other areas of development and planning.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the overall objective of further protection for SSSIs—which I very much hope will be included in the Queen's Speech—is to protect wildlife? Does he therefore agree that in any protection measures the Government should seek to protect also the wildlife that does not depend on SSSIs but is mobile in habit, such as the skylark? Will the Minister consider rationalising our general approach to wildlife so that policy planning guidance in the planning service, for example, recognises its importance?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in respect of the noble Baroness's first remarks, I cannot possibly anticipate the Queen's Speech and nothing that I have said hitherto should be taken as doing so. As regards wildlife, a number of proposals are before us and are in process to improve the protection of wildlife in SSSIs and beyond. The noble Baroness may know that the skylark is one of the 12 species for which we have arranged sponsorship. We may well take further action, whether legislative or non-legislative, in a number of areas.
Viscount Allenby of Megiddo: My Lords, bearing in mind the large number of Ministry of Defence holdings which are SSSIs, will the Minister say whether the review will include Ministry of Defence holdings?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the ongoing assessment includes that. In total the public sector as a whole owns about 40 per cent of SSSIs, a significant number of
8
which belong to the Ministry of Defence. I believe that in most respects the Ministry of Defence has a good record in this regard. However, all government departments, including the Ministry of Defence, are required to improve their management and husbandry of these sites.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: My Lords, can the Minister inform the House what percentage of the land area of England and Wales is currently designated SSSI?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the figure is 7 per cent, which I understand is about a million hectares.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, obviously the Minister cannot predict the legislation in the Queen's Speech, but will there be a Bill to consider the protection of SSSIs—as the noble Baroness on the Liberal Benches asked—or will there be an "overall" Bill? The prospect of an "overall" Bill is causing great concern. Will the Bill, or the principle behind it, take account of overregulation and the burden imposed on many who run SSSIs at present in difficult circumstances?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am tempted once again to anticipate the Queen's Speech. I can do so neither as regards the substance or the structure of legislation. I regret, therefore, that I cannot reply to the noble Baroness's main point further than I already have. As regards the regulatory burden, the Government are always concerned that any changes do not impose an additional regulatory burden. A large part of our approach is to help owners of such sites to improve their management rather than to impose additional burdens on them.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, as such a wide area—I think that it is a million hectares—is covered, very roughly, what is of special scientific interest as distinct from wildlife interest?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I suspect that I could send the noble Lord a list of nearly 4,000 sites, all of which differ as regards wildlife, vegetation, geology and habitat in general. There is a whole range of considerations, some of which apply to some of the sites and some to others. As the noble Lord implies, wildlife is only one such criterion.
The Earl of Iveagh: My Lords, will the Minister acknowledge the success of the environmentally sensitive areas scheme as administered by MAFF which has improved the condition of SSSIs up and down the country? Will the Minister consider developing that scheme to cover 100 per cent of the country?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not entirely sure what the noble Earl means by covering 100 per cent of the country. Certainly I commend the efforts of my

9
colleagues in MAFF in this respect. But of course a significant number of these sites are not on agricultural land.
Lord Elton: My Lords, given the intrinsic scientific interest of endangered species, will the noble Lord consider recommending Westminster as an SSSI?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I believe that that is business for tomorrow.

Greater London Authority Bill
3.8 p.m.
Further considered on Report.
Clause 269 [Establishment, membership and duty to maintain police force]:
Lord Dholakia Lord Dholakia moved Amendment No. 535ZA:
Page 154, line 2., at end insert—
("Discrimination.
5BB. The Metropolitan Police Authority shall be subject to section (Discrimination) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 535ZA I will speak also to Amendment No. 556A.
I welcome the Government's commitment to a strong and effective partnership between the police and local authorities working with local communities to fight and prevent crime. The amendment seeks to provide a framework which will deliver a permanent improvement in eliminating discrimination in the area of policing and in the rest of society. After all, this is precisely what the Home Office reported in the 15th United Kingdom periodic report to the UN Committee on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination.
The amendment is designed to assist the GLA and the police publicly to reaffirm their commitment to investing in good community and race relations as a core function of policing. It will also assist the police and the GLA to undertake the community and race relations audit on a regular basis. The Scarman Report on the Brixton disorders in 1981 and now the Macpherson Report on the Stephen Lawrence inquiry described a wide range of detailed measures to relieve institutional racism within the police service. The purpose of the amendment is not in doubt. It is to ensure that the Metropolitan Police Authority provides an appropriate and professional service to all sections of the community. The amendment will ensure that while those in a position of power and influence have a special duty and responsibility to provide leadership, everyone in an organisation will understand what they are expected to do. The evidence which was submitted to both inquiries painted a picture of lack of confidence in the police among ethnic minority communities.
The Government have pronounced that at some stage the Race Relations Act will be extended to bring police activity within its scope. But hopes for a far-reaching improvement to race equality legislation have been dampened to an extent by a cautious government response to the CRE proposal to reform the race relations legislation. I was delighted when during Questions the Minister said that the Government have something in mind in terms of taking a cautious approach.
I mentioned during the Second Reading of the Bill—and it is worth repeating—that it remains the view of the Commission for Racial Equality that extending the scope of the Race Relations Act is not sufficient. We do not know when this will happen. The CRE can be truly effective when challenging discriminatory practices only if there is a duty on all public bodies to promote racial equality and eliminate racial discrimination and all other forms of discrimination on improper grounds. No organisation can afford to put off tackling discrimination merely because the new legislation is not in place.
The Government have relied so far on Section 71 of the Act, which states:
"It shall be the duty of every local authority to make appropriate arrangements with a view to securing that their various functions are carried out with due regard to the need—

"(a) to eliminate unlawful racial discrimination; and

"(b) to promote equality of opportunity, and good relations, between persons of different racial groups".

This provision in the 1976 legislation has not had the effect and impact that Parliament intended at that time. The permanent indicators on racial equality in the local authorities annual report to the Audit Commission show that despite Section 71 there are areas of local government employment practice and service delivery which remain wholly outside the equal opportunity programmes. The confirmed high level of complaints of racial discrimination of local authority employees—in 1996 they accounted for approximately 15 per cent of all cases decided by industrial tribunals—shows that, even where there are such programmes, there is a substantial gap between promise and performance.
So what do we see in the GLA Bill? The same old, tired and failed provisions. We shall miss a golden opportunity if we continue to put faith in Clause 71 of the Race Relations Act. It has not worked effectively.
The new clause applies to the GLA, the MPA and the Fire and Emergency Planning Authority. The proposed new clause differs from Section 71 in the following ways. First, the duty is a more direct one; it builds positive duties in regard to anti-discrimination and equality of opportunity for all into the functions of the GLA, the MPA and the Fire and Emergency Planning Authority. The experience of the Commission for Racial Equality is that the wording in Section 71 is sufficiently vague as to have enabled some local authorities to pay lip service to racial equality but to do little or nothing else over the past 20 years.
Secondly, the amendment proposes that the duty to promote equality of opportunity should apply to all of the areas identified in the EU treaty, Article 13, rather

11
than racial equality alone. Thirdly, it refers to all kinds of unlawful discrimination. At the present time discrimination is unlawful on grounds of race, sex and disability. Again, the amendment goes beyond the scope of the Race Relations Act. It is not unreasonable to anticipate that in future, possibly in response to directives, discrimination in other areas will also be subject to statutory provision.
Fourthly, the third duty, to promote good relations, recognises that for London racism is an issue that must be directly addressed within the functions of the new authorities. It also recognises that people in London meet hostility and violence where there are differences of religion or sexual orientation. The recent London bombing campaign bears this out.
If the Government were to give an indication that they are prepared to accept the amendment, take it away and bring it back at Third Reading, I shall be delighted to withdraw it. I hope that serious consideration will be given to the new powers in terms of the GLA, the MPA and the fire authorities. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, the amendment raises important issues, and perhaps I would say that having raised similar points in Committee. In moving his amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, has highlighted key areas where the amendment adds to the existing provisions of the Race Relations Act. In particular, I welcome the inclusion in the new Clause 338 proposed in Amendment No. 556A of the need to promote and secure equality of opportunity for all persons irrespective of age and religion. Those are important matters for Londoners.
I am conscious that at times within London there has been an undercurrent of discrimination on grounds of religion. That is not adequately reflected in existing legislation. It is important that the new authority and its subsidiary bodies are seen to take a lead on this issue.
The other powerful provision in the amendment is the responsibility to promote good relations between persons of different racial groups, religious beliefs and sexual orientation. I hope that the new mayor and the new authority will be seen to be very much a force for good in promoting positive and harmonious community relations between all Londoners, whatever their race, religion, gender or sexual orientation. The placing of a positive responsibility on the mayor, the authority and its subsidiary bodies would be a welcome addition to the Bill.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I, too, welcome the amendment. I am not a specialist on these matters—I very seldom speak about race relations—but apart from the obvious necessity to improve race relations in the light of what we have seen in the past two or three years, we have to recognise that in London, being a global city, there will be a much greater variety of religions and races among the people who have recently moved here than is normally the case with other cities. We have to cast a very broad net and
12
define tolerance in a much broader sense than we have so far. We shall need a much more positive attitude from the new GLA.
The situation is much changed from 20 years ago. People of other races and other colours—if I may put it that way—are, on the one hand, very deprived and very poor; on the other hand, there are highly skilled people coming to this country. At both ends of the spectrum they deserve a much more tolerant, fair and positive discriminating attitude than we have seen so far.
The most important issue concerns young people. I speak as the father of children who are now in their 20s but who were teenagers in London. They do not like the police attitude towards them. That is a very simple fact. Unless the police can convey to the young people of London that they will not be suspected a priori because of the difference in their character, personality, colour or whatever else, we will not have good race relations. I very much welcome the noble Lord's amendment which seeks to place a positive duty on the GLA and the MPA to ensure good race relations.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: My Lords, I welcome the new clause tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. On the last occasion that we discussed an amendment of this kind, we had the privilege of seeing the name of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, added to the amendment on the Marshalled List. I hope that his speech today will leave the Minister in no doubt that the noble Lord is with us again. On the last occasion that this matter was raised, the Minister rose to the Dispatch Box and stated that, because of the three names attached to the amendment, he felt that he would be able to accept it. I am moved that all three noble Lords wish to see this provision on the face of the Bill. I look forward to seeing the Minister return to the Dispatch Box to deliver the same words.
It is sad that a provision of this kind is needed at all. One hopes that we will all live to see the day when it will not be found necessary to incorporate words of this kind in any legislation. When we look back over the history of this country, there are bound to be equivalent provisions that would be laughed at now, because the nation has moved on in a certain way. However, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, is right when he says that it is necessary at the moment. There is no more appropriate body than the GLA to take on this duty. This city has a 27 per cent ethnic population. For that reason, there could be no better place for a provision of this kind to be seen to be working.
The noble Lord, Lord Desai, referred to religion, and he was right in what he said. Over the past year I have attended several religious meetings. It is unusual to see 100 people in the congregation of a Church of England church. Two weeks ago I attended a West Indian church. There were 3,000 people in the congregation. I attended a Muslim meeting with 4,000 in the congregation. On another occasion I went to my own church, and I am afraid to say that the choir at the

13
West Indian church was larger than the congregation at my Church of England church. If, as a nation, we are not aware that this is happening, then we are half asleep. I hope that the Minister will give the clause his blessing. As the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said, it should be given a chance at Third Reading.
The noble Lord, Lord Desai, made a further comment about young people, which, the Minister might agree, moves away somewhat from this clause. However, it is interesting that the noble Lord feels that young people should be included when we consider minority groups. I shall be happy to send on to the noble Lord, Lord Desai, my speech of a year ago to the Metropolitan Police. At the time I said that if I were fortunate enough to be elected mayor, I would place two people under the age of 20 on the committee. In that way, two out of the 25 members would be able to confirm to the commissioner the statement made by the noble Lord, and one that I have heard many times all over London, that the young are treated differently. Those young people would be on the committee and thus able to say to the commissioner, "When I was out on Saturday night at my club, I was treated differently from the way my father claims he was treated when he was there". I would not put young people into a minority group, but I see a clear reason for allowing them to have their say at that level. I ask the Minister to take this new clause very seriously indeed and consider bringing it back at Third Reading, as the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, has asked.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, I should like to follow up the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Archer. In south London in the Church of England we have something in the order of 300 congregations. Perhaps half of those are in the most deprived urban parts of our city. The majority of those congregations will be members of minority ethnic groups. When discussing the Church of England, as when looking at other Christian denominations in London, we have a Church in the urban areas which is predominantly black, certainly m terms of the members of the congregation. For that reason, I wholeheartedly wish to support this clause.
It has been very noticeable to me that the Metropolitan Police, following the sad Lawrence murder, has begun to learn its lessons. Immediately after the nail bomb incident in Brixton the police gathered together community leaders, including the local Church leaders, and from the first hour shared with them sensitive information. As a result, the community was welded together in its effort to oppose that horrific racial attack. If it can be done in Brixton, it can be done throughout London. I hope the Minister will accept this clause wholeheartedly.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I, too, support the aspirations expressed in Amendment No. 556A, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. We would all support the principle of equality of opportunity as expressed in the first point of the clause. Further, we do, of course, support obeying the law in the elimination of all forms of unlawful
14
discrimination. The promotion of good relations is obviously of extreme importance. Again, no one would disagree with that.
The difficulty lies in trying to translate such aspirations into legal provisions, the actual machinery of the law. That has always been the difficulty in this field. As it stands, the Bill provides that the Greater London Authority and the Metropolitan Police Authority should be subject to the Race Relations Act in the same way as other local authorities. That is proper and is the minimum requirement, as it were. The amendment seeks to substitute more general aspirations for the somewhat precise machinery of the Race Relations Act itself. I should be grateful if the Minister could tell us, if the amendment were passed in its current form, what effect it would have on the duties and activities of the Commission for Racial Equality. So far as I can see, the clause would take the CR E out of the picture, except in a general reference to unlawful discrimination. That would remove the existing machinery without replacing it with other provisions. That may be a technical difficulty. However, that is not surprising since it is often the machinery of setting a matter down in law that is difficult to get right. Bringing forward a court case and ensuring that there is someone to bring the case is often the most difficult area.
Like the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, I, too, am encouraged by the efforts of the Metropolitan Police in recent months. I have heard several of its representatives describe what the force is doing in this area, and I feel that the way it has responded to the report on the Lawrence case is encouraging. It has obviously been difficult for the force, and there is a long way to go. Not everything is perfect so far as the Metropolitan Police is concerned. However, I believe that the responses of its senior officers and the new machinery that has been put in place will continue to lead to great improvements in race relations, and that is what concerns us here in Part VI of the Bill. I share the aspirations of the amendment, but the difficult part is to get the machinery correct.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench perhaps I may thank noble Lords from all quarters of the House who have offered their support. I hope we shall hear shortly from the Government Front Bench that they have taken on board the aspirations and ambitions encapsulated in the amendment, as have been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Cope. I am glad that my noble friend Lord Dholakia was able to be here to move the amendment. Although it is a Front Bench amendment, given the amount of work that the noble Lord has put into promoting good relations and equality of opportunity over such a long period, it is entirely right that he should take the lead on the amendment.
I use the term "ambitions" because I believe that the new government we shall have in London in a few months' time needs to be ambitious and to take the lead in these matters. I am increasingly of the view that in areas such as discrimination we need the structure of

15
law to help to set up the right culture. We need the new members of London government not only to look at mechanisms but to be clear that they have a responsibility to set a new culture and to take a lead, and to do more than what is required by the provisions incorporated in the Bill after Clause 27 when the House agreed an amendment on 12th October. That is a good clause but we feel it does not go far enough. It requires due regard to be paid to the principle of equality of opportunity. I hope that we can agree a clause in these terms, or something very like these terms, because it is a much more far reaching provision. If the Government are minded to accept something along the lines of this clause, I shall be interested to know what they intend to do with Clause 27. I thank my noble friend not just for moving the new clause today but for all the work he has done in making sure that noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench and in the rest of the House have their minds concentrated on such an important issue.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I very much appreciate the contributions made in the debate. It is important that in the Bill and in the operation of the GLA we reflect the concern about discrimination in London—discrimination on racial grounds and discrimination on the other grounds to which the amendment extends. I join the noble Lord, Lord Archer, once again, at least in terms of the ambitions of the amendment. The Government have already indicated—for example, in the equal opportunities clause introduced by my noble friend Lady Farrington on 12th October and to which your Lordships' House agreed—that we are concerned to meet the objectives of the amendment. It is vital that equality of opportunity is seen to run through the Bill. In particular in London, and in particular in respect of the Metropolitan Police, we have the terrible shadow of the Lawrence inquiry in terms of the racial dimension of the matter. It is important that the people of London should enjoy equality of opportunity and should not be discriminated against on any of the counts mentioned in the Bill.
Amendment No. 556A is the substantive amendment. In principle I would be happy to accept the amendment except that there are some concerns which reflect partly what the noble Lord, Lord Cope, said. I do not think that it would rule the commission out of the arena entirely but it would mean that the section of the Race Relations Act which applies to other local authorities up and down the land will be disapplied in relation to the bodies within London. I understand the motives of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, in trying to extend the scope of Section 71 and therefore have considerable sympathy for them, but there are some operational implications of that in relation to how existing obligations on all local government would then be affected. To that extent, the noble Lord, Lord Cope, has a point.
I therefore wish to indicate to the House that we accept the amendment in principle. We should like to look a little more closely at those implications and
16
either re-table Amendment No. 556A or something very like it at a later stage. I hope that on that basis the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Before I sit down, perhaps I may also indicate that the Government have a commitment to the need for the authority to promote equality of opportunity beyond all doubt. In the light of what was said in the debate on 12th October, when my noble friend Lady Farrington moved her amendment, we intend to bring forward another amendment at Third Reading which will reflect the House's concern that the clause should include a provision similar to that in the Government of Wales Act requiring the mayor each year to publish a report setting out the arrangements which have been put in place and an assessment of how effective those arrangements have been in promoting equality of opportunity. That is another arm to our approach to equal opportunities to which I hope noble Lords will agree at Third Reading. On that basis, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. He has been generous in his dealings with me all along and I am grateful for what he has said. He is right to say that there are some technical difficulties with the amendment and he is right to say that those should be considered carefully. I am delighted that a provision similar to that in the Government of Wales Act will be incorporated in the Bill. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 535A:
Page 154, leave out lines 32 to 37 and insert

("(c) the person or body responsible for the appointment of members of the Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority under regulations made under section 30B of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997 (which, by virtue of paragraph 5(b) of Schedule 2A to this Act, appoints magistrates to be members of the Metropolitan Police Authority.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this group of amendments is concerned with the appointment of magistrate members of the Metropolitan Police Authority. Now that the Access to Justice Act has been passed there are a number of changes we need to make to reflect the new arrangements that will apply to the administration of magistrates' courts in London. Amendment No. 536C substitutes new arrangements for how the four magistrate members of the MPA will be appointed. As drafted, paragraph 5 of Schedule 21 provides that the appointments will be made by a joint committee of the selection panels for the magistrates' courts committees within the Metropolitan Police District. There are 21 such selection panels, so it would be quite a task for them to join together to form a single panel to make the appointments.
As your Lordships will be aware, the Access to Justice Act establishes a new London-wide body called the Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority. This body will replace the existing magistrates' courts

17
committees in London which will in turn mean the disappearance of the MCC selection panels. The GLMCA will not assume its full powers until April 2001, but work is already under way in relation to the appointment of its members. A selection panel is to be set up for this purpose around the turn of the year. This single panel will therefore be in place comfortably before the MPA comes into being next July. We think that this panel would be the ideal body to make the four magistrate appointments to the MPA. That is what Amendment No. 536C achieves.
Amendment No. 535A is consequential. It provides that the body or person who makes appointments to the GLMCA—that is, the selection panel to which I have just referred—may be consulted by the Secretary of State when he is considering reducing the number of MPA members. This replaces the current provision in Clause 269 of the Bill whereby it is the MCC selection panels which must be consulted.
Amendments Nos. 536B, 536H and 536L to 536N make further changes consequent on the passage of the Access to Justice Act. Amendment No. 536N removes an enabling power for the Secretary of State to amend the description of magistrates as used in various places in Schedule 21. This power was included because at the time the Bill was introduced it was possible that the Access to Justice Bill, as it then was, might make changes which would lead to the description of London magistrates as used in Schedule 21 becoming outdated. Now that the Act has passed, the need for the power has been removed. Hence our amendment to delete it.
The other amendments simply remove the word "London" used at four junctures in the same schedule. This reflects a provision in the Access to Justice Act which has amended the 1997 Justices of the Peace Act so that it refers simply to "commission areas" rather than "London commission areas". These amendments are all sensible changes needed to take account of provisions contained in the Access to Justice Act. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, what the amendments seek to do is sensible. However, I am slightly confused over two points. First, Amendment No. 535A refers to the Justices of the Peace Act 1997 but the Minister referred to the Access to Justice Act in that context. I am not sure how the two provisions interlink. Secondly, in the next line of Amendment No. 535A there is a reference to paragraph 5(b) of Schedule 2A to this Act. Should that be a reference to paragraph 5(1)(b) of Schedule 21 to this Act? At the moment there is no Schedule 2A. Schedule 21 appears to be what it is intended to refer to. It seems to me that the reference should be paragraph 5(1)(b) rather than paragraph 5(b). Perhaps a manuscript amendment will be needed to correct that. While the Minister is seeking inspiration on that point, I may say that the new selection panel is clearly the right body, just as it is the right body to make the selections for the related Greater London. magistrates' courts authority.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for buying me some time. To answer
18
his first question, the Access to Justice Act 1999 amended the relevant part of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997. If that is not clear, we will provide the noble Lord with further elucidation. To answer his second point, there is a reference to Schedule 2A because Schedule 21 to the Bill inserts Schedule 2A into the Police Act 1996. I trust that those two replies satisfy the noble Lord's inquiries and do not prove a further barrier to agreeing these necessary amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 21 [The Metropolitan Police Authority: Schedule 2A to the Police Act 1996]:
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 536XZA:
Page 303, line 42, leave out ("appointed")and insert ("elected").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 536YZA and 536ZZA. An amendment included in this group, Amendment No. 536ZA of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, and his colleague, seeks to achieve the same purpose. The only difference is rather semantic; it is between the use of the word "election" or "appointment". For the purpose of debate, I am happy to accept that were the amendments to be successful, the assembly would appoint but might choose its appointees by election. I think we are at one in that respect.
We made clear at earlier stages of the Bill that this is not an argument about the strategic role of the mayor. We accept that our view will not prevail and that the Government's view will. We agree with the Government that there should be 12 members of the assembly on the Metropolitan Police Authority. There is no argument about that or that those members should reflect the political balance of the assembly and constitute a majority on the MPA. The difference between us is who appoints the assembly members.
The Bill states that the members should be appointed by the mayor. Members of both opposition Benches say that they should be appointed by the assembly. Nearly half the members of the assembly will serve on the Metropolitan Police Authority. They will be held accountable by their colleagues for their actions and behaviour. They will be, for all intents and purposes, representatives of the assembly. It is a fundamental democratic principle that those who represent the assembly should be appointed by the assembly and that the decision should not be foisted upon it.
I can understand the Government taking the view that the mayor must have more direct input to the work of the MPA to fulfil his strategic role. I would have thought the relationship between assembly members and the mayor would be good enough to achieve that through having half the assembly members on the authority. If the Government want a greater say, they could provide—as they do elsewhere in the Bill—that the deputy mayor must be a member. If the assembly were to appoint the 12 members, I would be happy to accept a provision in the Bill for making one of them the deputy mayor.
We return to the basic democratic principle that if the assembly is to be represented on the Metropolitan Police Authority in the way the Bill proposes, the assembly should choose its own representatives and not have the decision foisted upon it by the major—apparently without reference to the assembly. I beg to move.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I should put out that, as the other amendments indicated are also being spoken to, if Amendment No. 536ZZA is agreed, I cannot call Amendment No. 536ZA.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, although I hesitate slightly in present company to support any reduction in the powers of the mayor, nevertheless it will be apparent from the amendment in my name that I have some sympathy with the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Tope. I see no effective difference between the wording of the two amendments. I do not think there is any way that the authority would select its members except by electing them. It seemed to me that "appointed" was the appropriate word to use but I accept that there is no difference between us. We are happy to leave it to whichever word the parliamentary draftsman suggests Ministers should use, if they wish to go along with the proposal.
I do not understand the Government's resistance to the amendment. I thought that I might be seeing the point when I read rumours in the media the other day that Mr. Philips had been induced to withdraw from the struggle to become the mayor by a promise of being on the police authority. Whether or not that rumour is true—I have been too long at this game to take much notice—patronage of that character might be helpful to those who wish to control everything. Perhaps that was the Government's reason for taking the line they did in Committee and perhaps they will continue to take it now. We shall see.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I commend noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat and Conservative Benches for their honesty in agreeing that the amendments are similar and for the way in which they have constructed an agreement between themselves. That seems very laudable.
The Government resisted similar amendments at Committee and Report stages in another place and in Committee in this House. While I applaud the tenacity of noble Lords, the Government will continue to resist the amendments for the same reasons. Amendments Nos. 536ZA and 536ZZA are another attempt to extend the powers of the assembly at the expense of the mayor. We have rehearsed again and again the arguments for striking the balance we have between the mayor and the assembly.
The power of appointment is crucial to the mayor's ability to take a high-level and strategic interest in the MPA's efforts to tackle crime and maintain an
20
efficient and effective policing service in London. Moreover, the role is consistent with the mayor's powers of appointment to the three other functional bodies. On the grounds of consistency and the need to have a high-level strategic interest, we must resist the amendments. We do not want any dilution of the mayor's power in that respect.
The mayor's power of appointment is of course subject to the requirement that he or she shall ensure that, so far as is practicable, his or her appointments reflect the balance of the parties on the assembly. Although, subject to that constraint, decisions on appointment are for the mayor, we would expect him or her to take account of views expressed by the parties represented on the assembly as to which of their number would be most suited to being on the MPA. For those reasons, I suggest that both noble Lords should feel able to withdraw their amendments.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I cannot say that I am surprised at that reply. Although I had no higher expectations, I am slightly disappointed. I can reassure the Minister that it did not take very much collusion between the two Opposition Front Benches. We have been agreed on this point throughout—the only difference between us was a minor one regarding the use of language. This amendment does not relate so much to the strategic role of the mayor, but more to control by the mayor.
I believe that we are making a big mistake. The 12 assembly members appointed by the mayor and answerable to him or her will soon find themselves in great difficulty with their 13 colleagues who will not be members of the Metropolitan Police Authority. However, I shall not press the matter further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 536YZA to 536ZA not moved.]
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 536ZAA, I must point out to the House that, if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 536A.
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 536ZAA:
Page 304, line 8, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment we turn specifically to the requirement that the deputy mayor "must" be a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority. I accept that if nearly half the members of the assembly are to be members of the Metropolitan Police Authority, it is entirely possible, indeed probable, that the deputy mayor may well be one of them. Our difficulty relates to the requirement in the Bill that the deputy mayor "must" be a member of the police authority.
I fail to understand, even after our debate in Committee, why the Government have singled out this particular functional body, important though it is—no one questions that—to require the deputy mayor to be a member. He or she may be better suited by qualification, experience or interest to membership of

21
one of the other functional bodies, and some other equally important senior member of the assembly could fulfil that function for the mayor. The deputy mayor will of course be a key member of the mayor's cabinet. But that role can be filled by other members of the mayor's cabinet who are also assembly members.
Our key point is not so much that the deputy mayor should not be a. member of the Metropolitan Police Authority, but the requirement that he or she must be. Why has the MPA been singled out for particular attention in that regard as distinct from any other functional body to which the deputy mayor may be better suited? I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, here is another oddity. Why should the deputy mayor automatically be a member of the police authority? We have argued the point in Committee. As the noble Lord has suggested, it might be better in the mayor's view to put another member in place of the deputy mayor and to give other responsibilities to the individual in question.
Perhaps the case of Mr Philips throws some light on the matter. Further information has reached me that Mr Philips has "peen promised that he will be deputy mayor, and indeed chairman of the police authority. If he believes that, he should consult paragraph 6 of Schedule 21. As the Bill stands, the paragraph makes it clear that it is for the authority to appoint the chairman. not for anyone else to do so. Not even the new mayor can promise that to any individual.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: My Lords, it may be wise to suggest to my noble friend that it would be even better for the Labour Party to find out who their candidate is before stating who will be deputy mayor.
Lord Cope of Berkeley:My Lords, that would be a very good idea—and we all know a good deal about how they are setting about that effort. It seems a very peculiar way to set about it. However, I shall not go into that at present.
As I said, it is an oddity that the deputy mayor should automatically be a member of the police authority. Those with suspicious minds will wonder how the provision has come about and why it is necessary to include it. I do not have a suspicious mind, but I do wonder.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is probably wise to avoid speculation about mayoral candidates at this stage.
In responding to this amendment, perhaps I may speak first to the two government amendments which clarify a couple of matters regarding the position of the deputy mayor on the Metropolitan Police Authority.
Amendment No. 536K provides that the deputy mayor will cease to be a member of the MPA if he or she ceases to be deputy mayor. The Bill already makes specific provision as to what should happen when the
22
deputy mayor acts as the mayor. In such cases he or she will sometimes be required to step down temporarily from the MPA.
However, as the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, correctly pointed out in Committee, the Bill as it stands is silent on what should happen if the deputy mayor ceases to be the deputy—for example, following a resignation. I am grateful to the noble Lord for pointing out the omission.
This amendment rectifies that gap—so there is success for the noble Lord there. Since the deputy will have his or her place by virtue of that office, we believe it right that that individual should be required to step down as a member on losing that office. Equally, provided that he or she remains an assembly member, there is no reason why he or she should not remain eligible for reappointment to the MPA in his or her capacity as an assembly member. That will be possible by virtue of paragraph 18 of Schedule 21.
Amendment No. 536A makes clear that the deputy mayor will be subject to the disqualification criteria for MPA membership as set out in paragraph 8 of Schedule 21. These cover standard disqualification issues, such as bankruptcy and criminal convictions. They are very similar to those which Clause 20 of the Bill applies to assembly members—and hence to the deputy mayor.
I turn now to the opposition amendment which would remove the requirement that one of the 12 assembly members of the MPA be the deputy mayor. Various arguments have been advanced as to why it is unnecessary to tie the hands of the mayor and require him or her to appoint the deputy mayor. As my noble and learned friend Lord Williams of Mostyn said in a previous debate, our reasoning on this subject is clear. The deputy mayor will be a key player in the assembly and in the mayor's cabinet. We want the deputy to be on the MPA to provide a link between the mayor and that body. We believe that such an arrangement provides the right balance for the oversight of policing in London. It gives the mayor an appropriate means of influencing the thinking of the MPA in the way it exercises its responsibilities of maintaining an efficient and effective police force in the Metropolitan Police District. We believe policing to be that important.
This argument will, I know, sound familiar to your Lordships' House. But in the many debates that we have had on this subject during the passage of the Bill, we have remained of the view that the argument is sound and that the Bill should be left as it stands.
It may be helpful if I add a further point. In the debate that we have just had on the appointment of assembly members I referred to the party political balance requirement to which the mayor is subject. In case there is any doubt, I should make clear that the appointment of the deputy mayor is included within the overall balancing equation—it is not the case that the balance applies only to the other 11 appointments, with the deputy then added. That could lead to

23
unfairness, and is not the way the Bill operates. I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment and I commend the two government amendments.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I understand why he does not want to speculate on who the mayoral candidate might be. That is not a problem that Members on either of the Opposition Benches have. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, that I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare—and more particularly, Councillor Eddie Lister—was also listening to the point about who appoints the chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority.
The Minister has not answered the point that both of us on the Opposition Front Benches have made again—namely, why include this specific reference to the Metropolitan Police Authority? We have accepted, very reluctantly, that the mayor will appoint all 12 assembly members of the Metropolitan Police Authority. Surely it is for the mayor to decide whether that is the key role that he or she wishes the deputy mayor to play. It is not for the Government to tell the mayor, whether or not he or she wishes it, that the mayor must have the deputy mayor on the Metropolitan Police Authority.
Why do the Government seek to control the mayor, whoever it turns out to be, to such an extent as to tell him or her what the deputy mayor must be doing? It must surely be a matter to be decided between the mayor and the deputy mayor. As has been said, it may very well be that the deputy mayor will be better qualified by experience, knowledge and interest to play an equally important key role on one of the other functional bodies.
I still have not heard from the Government any argument that goes anywhere near either convincing me or helping me to understand why they wish so much to control what appointments the mayor must make. Regretfully, this is perhaps not the time to pursue the amendment further, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 536A to 536C:
Page 304, line 10. at end insert ("or unless the Deputy Mayor is disqualified for being appointed as or being a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority under paragraph 8 below.").
Page 305, line 4, leave out ("London").
Page 305, line 6, leave out from ("appointed") to end of line 18 and insert ("by the person or body responsible for the appointment of members of the Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority under regulations made under section 30B of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 536D:
Page 305, line 32, leave out paragraph 7.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No.536D removes from the Bill paragraph 7 of Schedule 21 which disqualifies those aged 70 or over from membership of the Metropolitan Police Authority. On reflection, we see no reason to exclude from police authority membership perfectly able people of advancing years. If this amendment is passed we shall take the earliest opportunity to amend the Police Act 1996 to remove the upper age criterion for police authority membership in the rest of England and Wales. The other amendments in this group are simply consequential on Amendment No. 536D and I commend them to the House.
As the Bill stands, those aged 70 and over are barred from being MPA members. Since magistrates have to retire at 70, magistrate members of police authorities throughout England and Wales have to resign on reaching that age. The reasoning appears to have been that equality of misery should be applied to other police authority members. The GLA Bill currently echoes the position in other police authorities in line with our general approach that the structures and functions of the MPA should, as far as possible, be the same as those of authorities outside London. However, on reconsideration it seems wrong to exclude from police authority membership perfectly able people. Amendment No. 536D removes the upper age limit for MPA members. The Government will bring forward legislation to remove the upper age limit for other police authorities in England and Wales. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, nobody in this House will believe that those over 70 have nothing to contribute to debate and decision. It happens all the time. I believe that everyone in your Lordships' House will support this amendment. I understand that in universities in the United States it is now illegal to retire an academic just because he or she has attained the age of 70. It is good that the Government are also moving towards that view.
I have only one small point. The Minister said that the Bill as it stood meant that a person would be disqualified from membership of the Metropolitan Police Authority. I believe that, strictly, he or she is disqualified from being appointed a member of the authority at age 70. If, as the Bill stands, he is appointed under the age of 70 presumably he can continue at least until his term expires. In any case, as that restriction is being removed it no longer matters. Magistrates will still have to retire at 70 but, as the Government are extending this principle to other bodies, perhaps they will get round to that in due course.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I welcome this change of heart by the Government. It was entirely appropriate that earlier this afternoon we debated the duty on the authority to promote and secure equality of opportunity, among other things, on the grounds of age. Therefore, it seems entirely appropriate that we should remove this particular form of discrimination that currently exists in the Bill. We welcome this provision. It is not for me to answer the point related to magistrates just raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cope.

25
However, it seems to me that when people cease to be magistrates by virtue of age, they cease to be qualified as magisterial members of the police authority. That may well be the answer that the Minister is able to provide very shortly. I welcome the amendments.
Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, I have no problem at all with the principle that age discrimination at age 70 should be ended as proposed by this amendment. I am sure that that is a positive provision which is intended to apply generally and not just to the occasional individual. However, Tarn unclear as to why in their desire to avoid age discrimination the Government have not sought to make a similar change to paragraph 9(1)(a) of the schedule which, as far as I can see, restricts appointment to people who have,
"not yet attained the age of twenty-one years".
I would have thought that the principle of trying to avoid age discrimination applied at both ends of the spectrum and that there would be considerable benefit to the considerations of the Metropolitan Police Authority if, in certain circumstances, it was possible for people not yet 21 to serve on that authority.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, in this grouping is Amendment No. 538D. I should be very grateful if the noble Lord could explain exactly how that is consequential on the removal of the age limit, since it does not appear to refer to that at all. Having dealt with that, perhaps he can explain exactly what it does and why it is required in this Bill.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful for the warm words of support that this particular amendment has appeared to attract from all round the Chamber. I am also grateful for the very interesting question raised by my noble friend Lord Harris, on which I shall take advice. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, at the moment the Bill uses the term,

"has attained the age of seventy years".
Effectively, that wording is removed by the amendment. I believe that that answers the point.
Currently, I am taking advice on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. He asked how Amendment No. 538D was consequential. If I do not have the answer by the time I have sat down I shall endeavour to provide it later in writing. I can now assist. The answer to the noble Lord's question appears to be that this amendment removes the age limit of 70 for membership of the selection panel for independent members of the MPA. If that is not clear to the noble Lord, I am happy to write to him.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, it is not clear and we may raise the matter when we come to that amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 536E to 536G:
Page 306. line 28, leave out ("paragraphs 7 and") and insert ("paragraph").
Page 306, line 35, leave out ("paragraphs 7 and") and insert ("paragraph").
Page 306, line 39, leave out ("paragraphs 7 and") and insert ("paragraph").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 536H:
Page 306, line 45, leave out ("London").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No.536J:
Page 307. line 13, leave out from ("years") to (", or") in line 14.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 536K:
Page 307, line 28, at end insert
("( ) The Deputy Mayor appointed to be a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority under paragraph 2 shall cease to be a member of that Authority if he ceases to be Deputy Mayor.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments No. 536L to 536N:
Page 307, line 31, leave out ("London").
Page 308. line 31, leave out ("London").
Page 308. line 34, leave out sub-paragraphs (2) and (3).
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 536NA:
After Clause 283, insert the following new clause—

Greater London Authority Bill

  MATTERS ARISING ON BOUNDARY CHANGES: ARBITRATION
  (". In the absence of agreement between—

  (a) the Police Authorities for Essex, Hertfordshire and Surrey and the Metropolitan Police Authority about the transfer of land, buildings, capital and other assets from the Metropolitan Police to the other Authorities, or

  (b) the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and the chief officer of a police force about the secondment of staff under section 283,

  Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary shall act as an arbitrator, and the Secretary of State shall, if necessary, provide for the implementation of the arbitrator's decision by order".).
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, at Committee stage there was some discussion as to what should happen if there was no agreement between the Metropolitan Police and its authority and the three county forces to which it is ceding areas in the reduction of the area for which the Metropolitan Police is to be responsible. That ceding of areas involves the transfer of a considerable amount of assets. Buildings, cars and so on are likely to have to be transferred. Police officers are likely in some cases to be transferred. but in most cases seconded.
  There may not be absolute agreement between the four authorities about which buildings, assets and police should be transferred or seconded. In that case the legislation should provide some way of resolving any disagreement. The proposed new clause provides that Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary should act as an arbitrator in any dispute. That is one way; there are other potential ways.
  At this stage of the process, the Minister may be able to tell us that all is sweetness and agreement between the four authorities; that they have all signed up without difficulty to every proposal as regards the new arrangements. If that is so, no clause such as is proposed is necessary. If the Minister cannot assure us that that is the position, some such clause is necessary.
  The Secretary of State may find himself having to arbitrate, and that would be one provision that we might have to put in the Bill. At the same time, the Secretary of State, as the current police authority for the metropolis, is one of the parties involved in the discussion and very close to one of the four parties involved. It seemed to me that someone a little more independent might be called for; clearly he or she must be an expert. I do not know whether the Minister can assure us that there is complete agreement; that would solve the difficulty.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I hope that I can offer the noble Lord some comfort. We are happy with the progress in discussions and negotiations. We believe that the amendment is wrong in seeking to give Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary a role as an arbitrator which, in general terms given the work of the Inspectorate of Constabulary, would be inappropriate. It is unnecessary, as provisions already exist in the Bill for the Secretary of State to decide, in the event of disagreement between forces involved in the boundary change, about what should transfer or about what payment should be made to the Metropolitan Police for officers on secondment; and the amendment is flawed, since it refers to the MPA reaching agreement on a transfer which will take place before it comes into existence. I think that the noble Lord needs to look at the drafting of the amendment.
  In speaking to the amendment, I should emphasise at the outset that the Government recognise the importance of ensuring a smooth handover of responsibilities between the Metropolitan Police and the three county forces—Essex, Hertfordshire and Surrey—affected by the boundary change.
  The transfer of property, rights and liabilities is part of this exercise, as is the secondment of officers from the Metropolitan Police Authority to the county forces. I therefore agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cope, that it is important for these matters to be addressed. But I part company from him in his suggestion that the amendment that he has tabled is the right approach.
  This amendment would give a role to Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary as an arbitrator. It is not clear why the noble Lord believes that the inspectorate
  28
  should take on this role. It is the inspectorate's role to help individual forces, and the service as a whole, improve their effectiveness. Adjudicating between forces is not its primary role and I do not think that issues of property transfer or police officer secondments are obvious candidates for its involvement. This amendment would risk bad feeling towards the inspectorate in the future from any force which felt it had lost out in any arbitration.
  During a debate on a similar amendment in Committee the noble Lord made the reasonable point that in the event that arbitration became necessary the Secretary of State was best placed to act as referee. I agree with what the noble Lord said then, and I am not sure why he should be taking a somewhat different view now.
  The Bill already includes provisions for suitable arbitration in the event of disagreements between the forces involved in the boundary changes. Transfers of land, buildings etc. will be effected by orders or schemes. Either way the contents of the orders or schemes, whether or not there is disagreement between the forces, will have to be approved by the Secretary of State. The relevant provisions, contained in Clauses 351 and 352 of the Bill, remain unaffected by this proposed new clause. Schedule 26 to the Bill gives power to the Secretary of State to modify transfer schemes should he wish to do so.
  Before moving on to the other part of the new clause, I should like to add that I do not envisage the Secretary of State's arbitration role arising often. The four forces involved in the boundary change have been working closely with each other and with the Home Office for over a year on these matters, and I am confident that in the vast majority of cases they will be able to reach agreement between themselves.
  Paragraph (b) of the amendment refers to disagreement about the secondment of officers. Clause 283(4) already provides for the Secretary of State to arbitrate in the event of disagreement about the level of payment to the commissioner for officers on secondment.
  It might be that the noble Lord is concerned about the Met being unable or unwilling to provide sufficient seconded officers to help the county forces, so leading to the transferred areas being poorly policed. That is an understandable concern, but I hope that I shall be able to reassure him on that point.
  The close working relationship between the four forces to which I have already referred extends to the secondment of police officers from the Met to the county forces. They are all fully behind the idea of secondments and I simply do not envisage serious disputes arising over the number of secondments.
  When the number of secondees is added to those officers who will be transferring on a voluntary basis as well as to new officers that the three county forces are recruiting, I am confident that there will not be a

  29
  shortfall in the number of officers. In the light of the assurances that have given, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the Minister said that he is happy with the progress of the discussions between the four authorities. I make clear that I am not wedded to the details of the amendment. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  4.15 p.m.
  Clause 284 [Abolition of office of Receiver]:
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 536NB:
  Leave out Clause 284.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 536NB, 536NC, 536ND, 570YA, 570ZA and 573C in relation to the Probation Service in London are largely of a technical nature.
  It is the Government's policy that the criminal justice agencies should share the same boundaries; namely, those of the police force areas in England and Wales. In the case of probation, this means that the present 54 probation services must become 42. In all, 20 probation services will be involved in amalgamations, which we intend shall take effect on 1st April 2001.
  In London, the five existing services—Inner London, South-East London, South-West London, Middlesex and North-East London—need to merge to form a new coherent service for Greater London. The Probation Service Act 1993 contains an order-making power to amalgamate probation services. (It is to be found in Section 2 of that Act). However, there is a problem in relation to the creation of a single London Probation Service in that the 1993 Act clearly envisages that there shall be more than one probation service in London.
  We have concluded that to make an order amalgamating the London services under the existing provision would go beyond the vires of that provision.
  Our amendments to the GLA Bill will allow us to proceed with the London amalgamation; the new clause inserted by Amendment No. 536NC provides an order-making power to that effect. Our amendments also deal with the abolition of the receiver, an issue which arises because of the Inner London Probation Service's links to the receiver.I beg to move.
  Lord Lucas: My Lords, I would like to ask a couple of questions on this group of amendments. As the noble Lord said, Amendment No. 536NB reinstates the office of the receiver, and his eventual demise is provided for under Amendment No. 536ND.
  The group beginning with Amendment No. 536P contains a whole raft of amendments concerning the deletion of references to the receiver of the Metropolitan Police in other legislation. What
  30
  assurance may we have from the Government that these rather hasty, last minute amendments amount to a coherent whole? If the office of the receiver is to be retained, why are we none the less proceeding with a large number of deletions of references to that office in other Acts? Are we not likely to find ourselves in a state of some confusion as to whether or not those references should be retained until the office of receiver is eventually abolished when Amendment No. 536ND comes into force?
  In addition, should not the powers under that clause have included a limited Henry VIII power, as m the immediately preceding amendment, to polish up other bits and pieces of Acts and remove references to the receiver when the office of receiver is actually abolished? Are we not in danger of running into difficulty in that respect?
  These amendments have arisen at the very last minute and refer to several pieces of legislation. In those circumstances, it is extremely difficult to know whether those are in fact in place. Should not the Government give themselves time and opportunity to find out if that is the case?
  With regard to the powers under subsections (6) and (7) of Amendment No. 536NC, will the Government say that these are limited to what is obvious? Under subsection (6) of Amendment No. 536NC there are extensive powers to amend the Probation Service Act 1993. I believe I understood the Minister to say that that would be limited to amendments necessary to ensure that there could be one single Probation Service authority for London. Is that true, or will other use be made of those powers? I would also very much like to know what use is to be made of the powers under subsection (7) of Amendment No. 536NC.
  Turning to the last three amendments in this group, we appear to have a mixture of affirmative and negative resolutions. Some of the resolutions under these new amendments will clearly be affirmative. However, an exception is made to that and they appear to be caught by the negative procedure under Amendment No. 573C. Because I have not been able to establish it from my study of the amendments, I should be very grateful if the noble Lord could clarify which resolutions will be affirmative and which will be negative.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Lucas, I had difficulty working out the parliamentary procedure to be followed in the laying of orders under this group of amendments. As my noble friend said, Amendment No. 570YA seems to mean that an affirmative procedure has to be followed. However, that is immediately qualified by Amendment No. 570ZA, which refers to the possibility of an instrument
  "making … amendments or repeals in an enactment contained in a local and personal or private Act".
  It seems to me that it is extremely unlikely, though I do not speak with authority, that the organisation of probation in London would be involved in any local, personal or private Act.
  Paragraph (b) suggests that it relates to,
  "amendments or revocations in subordinate legislation which was not subject to affirmative parliamentary procedure".
  That is rather difficult. We know what these orders will achieve. They are going to achieve the amalgamation of the Probation Service. That is a considerable matter and a matter which should be dealt with by affirmative order. However, it may be that there are some aspects of the amalgamation which deal with
  "subordinate legislation which was not subject to affirmative parliamentary procedure",
  and the whole matter might slip out of the affirmative procedure under that guise.
  The difficulty in this respect is that these amendments have been laid relatively late in the passage of the Bill, and much too late to receive the attention of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation, which usually looks into these matters, unravels them and sets them out clearly in reports, so that we do not need to trouble ourselves too much in the House with them. However, where these powers are introduced in such a complex way in a late stage amendment, I believe that we require to look into them a little more closely, as my noble friend has suggested.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I shall try to be as helpful as I can, although I am not able to be as helpful as I would like.
  The overall purpose of these amendments is to create a coherent Probation Service for London. I believe that that point is well understood by all your Lordships. It is our intention to do this in a way which ensures that there is a coherent working relationship between the Probation Service in London and the Metropolitan Police Service. These amendments give effect to that desirable policy objective, which is shared across the Dispatch Boxes.
  With regard to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, about powers under subsection (6) of Amendment No. 536BNC, these are strictly limited to the purpose of amalgamating the London probation services. I trust that that takes care of that particular point.
  He made a further point in relation to the Metropolitan Police receiver. It is not proposed that we should commence the revocations in relation to the receiver until all his functions have been transferred elsewhere. I hope that that satisfies the noble Lord's question.
  With regard to some of the other detailed points about negative and affirmative processes and order-making, if your Lordships would be gracious enough to accept the suggestion, we would like to write to noble Lords and describe further the interrelationship of these various processes and procedures so that they will be clear. As a consequence, they may also become clearer to me. On that basis I trust that noble Lords will be happy to accept the amendments that we have moved this afternoon.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he said at the beginning that this
  32
  was a group of technical amendments. It seems to me that a complete reorganisation of the service by order, not by primary legislation, is very far from technical. It is an enormous move and a slightly odd way to treat Parliament. Will he retract the statement that they are technical amendments? I believe that my noble friends accept that the Government are of necessity proceeding in this way because of late consideration of the matter. It seems to me, after a great number of years in this House, a most extraordinary way in which to deal with the matter and even more extraordinary to call it a technical matter. Is the Minister prepared to tell us why he said that it was technical?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, there is technical and there is technical. When I described these amendments as being of a technical nature it was not meant to belittle the import of the policy thinking behind them. While the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, has a point, it is not an entirely formed point. The policy was clear. We decided that it would be better to achieve the amalgamation by way of legislation rather than seek to do it otherwise, so that we could achieve a proper amalgamation of the London probation services. We feel that this is more consistent with the powers contained in the 1993 Act. I hope that that satisfies the point. I am quite happy to take further questions on the matters that have been raised. If it is required, we will happily reply in writing at greater length in an attempt to satisfy your Lordships entirely. However, I trust that the question is satisfied.
  4.30 p.m.
  Lord Lucas: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he did not answer my question about the intention of subsection (7) of Amendment No. 536NC.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I can now answer the noble Lord's point. It is the Government's policy in the 42 areas to amalgamate. We do not envisage a need to amalgamate London probation any further but consider it wise to have the power which enables us to achieve that. I hope that that answers the point.
  Lord Lucas: My Lords, no, I do not believe that it does. If the Government have no intention of using the power, why are they giving themselves the power? This is a reorganisation taking place in short order. If the Government do not know what they want the power for, why is it in the Bill?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I offered to write and I shall happily do so. We believe that this power is necessary to achieve the objective of our stated policy. I shall be happy the elucidate further in writing to the noble Lord.
  Lord Shepherd: My Lords, will the Minister look at the provision again? This is not the first occasion in recent weeks when the House has felt that it would have been better to send amendments, prior to their being laid, to the Delegated Powers and Deregulation

  33
  Committee. On an occasion last week, a Minister was able to report to the House that that committee had seen the amendments and had approved them.
  The Minister's final point moves on to dangerous ground. I was a member of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee and it took great exception to Ministers taking powers that they might "wish". There is no end to where such powers might lead. Will the Minister look further at the issue? Although it might be immaterial with regard to this Bill, it could be seen as a dangerous step in terms of other legislation.
  I do not want to delay the Bill and I am sure that that is the view of noble Lords opposite. However, I ask the Minister to inquire whether the matter can be referred to the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee—per ha.ps it can be brought to the attention of the chairman or the committee—to consider whether the Government should be taking powers which they might need but they might not.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, my understanding is that this matter has been the subject of correspondence between the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, and the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, confirming that the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee concluded that no matters needed bringing to the attention of the House.
  Lord Shepherd: My Lords, was that in connection with the original Bill?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the correspondence, of which I have a copy, was transacted last week. I should be happy to furnish the noble Lord with a copy should he so wish.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 536NC and 536ND:
  After Clause 285, insert the following new clause

  ORGANISATION OF PROBATION SERVICE IN GREATER LONDON
  (".—(1) The Secretary of State may by order make provision for combining in one probation area ("the Greater London probation area") all of the petty sessions areas which fall wholly within Greater London.
  (2) An order under subsection (1) above may make provision for the purpose of, or in connection with, organising the probation service for the Greater London probation area.
  (3) The provision that may be made under subsection (2) above—

  (a) includes provision for the qualifying expenses of any probation committee for the Greater London probation area to be defrayed by the Secretary of State, and

  (b) in consequence of the provision mentioned in paragraph (a) above, includes provision requiring the Receiver for
  34
  the Metropolitan Police District to refrain from exercising the functions conferred on him by the Probation Service Act 1993.

  (4) In subsection (3) above the reference to the qualifying expenses of any probation committee for the Greater London probation area shall be construed in accordance with section 17 of the Probation Service Act 1993.
  (5) The provision that may be made under subsection (2) above includes provision relating to the appointment of, and allowances payable to, members of any probation committee for the Greater London probation area and any probation liaison committee for any area in the Greater London probation area.
  (6) Without prejudice to section 349(1) below, the provision that may be made under subsection (1) or (2) above includes provision amending or repealing provisions of the Probation Service Act 1993.
  (7) The Secretary of State may by order make provision for including in the Greater London probation area any petty sessions area outside that probation area.
  (8) Before making an order under this section the Secretary of State shall give the justices acting for any petty sessions area affected by the order an opportunity of making representations about it, and shall consider any such representations.").
  After Clause 285, insert the following new clause—

  ABOLITION BY ORDER OF OFFICE OF RECEIVER
  (".—(1) When the Secretary of State is satisfied that —

  (a) provision has been made such that no statutory functions remain, or are to remain, exercisable by the Receiver (whether as a consequence of provision made by or under this Act, the Access to Justice Act 1999 or any other enactment whenever passed), and

  (b) provision has been made for the transfer of all property, rights and liabilities of the Receiver (whether under Part XII below or by or under the Access to Justice Act 1999 or any other enactment whenever passed),

  the Secretary of State may by order provide for the abolition of the office of the Receiver.
  (2) In subsection (1) above references to the Receiver are references to the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District.").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Schedule 22 [Further amendments relating to metropolitan police etc.]:
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 536P:
  Page 310, line 2, at end insert—
  ("The Metropolitan Police Act 1887
  The Metropolitan Police Act 1887 shall cease to have effect.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this large group of amendments makes various consequential amendments to legislation dating back to the last century. Schedule 22 to the Bill already makes numerous such changes which are required to reflect the creation of the Metropolitan Police Authority and the eventual abolition of the office of receiver. These amendments simply complete the set. I beg to move.
  Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am entirely "uncontent" to let the noble Lord get away with that. These are complicated amendments making many changes to existing legislation. If they had been connected with other amendments being discussed, they could have been grouped with them, but they have not been. They

  35
  are presented in isolation as though they have something in common just because they amend existing Acts.
  I should like an explanation from the noble Lord of the principal amendment in the group because from what is in front of me I fail to understand. I shall ask him the same question individually on each amendment in the group until we have reached the point where the House and I understand what is going on.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I can rely only on what I am advised. It is that the amendments are consequential. Looking at the schedule, they would appear to be exactly that. I am confident enough to say that they will not necessarily trouble your Lordships; they seem simply to follow on and to tidy up legislation.
  I am happy to write to the noble Lord setting out in full what the amendments achieve. I can assure the House that they are all consequential to the establishment of the MPA, which we all agree is a highly desirable policy objective.
  Lord Lucas: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, taking the first amendment, how can it be evident to anyone in this House that the abolition of the Metropolitan Police Act 1887 is entirely necessary for the purpose of the Bill? One might suggest it, but perhaps the noble Lord will tell me what that Act does. If it is obvious that what is proposed is required by the Bill, why was it not in the Bill at an earlier stage?
  Nothing has changed. The Metropolitan Police Authority was always going to be created by the Bill. Why has it suddenly occurred to the draftsman that that Act now needs to be removed? That question applies to many similar amendments in the group. It is not sufficient for the Government to seek to move amendments which they do not understand, merely on the assurance of the Box, apparently not questioned by the Minister, that the changes are consequential. If the Minister does not understand amendments, he should not move them.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord is overegging his argument and his point. It is the case that a number of amendments have to be consequential. I am happy to provide the noble Lord with a more detailed explanation of the cause and effect of all of these amendments in the fullness of time and in due course. I had hoped that he would be satisfied with that.
  The legislation is complex. It cannot always be immediately obvious to those drafting it as to which other pieces of legislation need to be amended. I am sure that the noble Lord will accept that as a reasonable point.
  The amendments repeal the Metropolitan Police Acts 1887 and 1897. They deal only with the sections which relate to the receiver's functions in relation to the police. They will no longer be relevant once the
  36
  MPA is in place. The case is that the functions of the receiver will no longer be relevant once the MPA is set up and established. I should have thought that it was glaringly obvious, therefore, that one would seek to amend and negate the other pieces of legislation which no longer have relevance to the way in which the MPA will operate.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 536Q and 536R:
  Page 310, line 6, leave out paragraph 8 and insert—
  ("8. The Metropolitan Police Courts Act 1897 shall cease to have effect.").
  Page 311, line 5, leave out paragraph 15 and insert—
  ("15.—(1) The Metropolitan Magistrates' Courts Act 1959 shall be amended as follows.
  (2) In section 4(2) (borrowing powers of Receiver), the words ", or of the metropolitan police force," shall cease to have effect.").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 536RA:
  Page 311, line 29, leave out sub-paragraphs (2) to (4) and insert—
  ("( ) In subsection (1)(a) (definition of "member of the metropolitan civil staffs")—
  (a) before sub-paragraph (i) there shall be inserted—
  "(ia) who is employed by the Metropolitan Police Authority; or"; and.
  (b) for that sub-paragraph there shall be substituted—
  "(i) who was employed under the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis or the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District and was not a constable and whose salary was paid out of the Metropolitan Police Fund;".
  ( ) In subsection (2) (power of Secretary of State to grant certain pensions payable by the Receiver out of the Metropolitan Police Fund) for the words from the beginning to "in respect of members of the metropolitan civil staffs" in paragraph (b) there shall be substituted—
  "(2) As from the day on which section 269 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 comes into force, the Metropolitan Police Authority shall have power to grant pensions or other benefits to or in respect of persons who on that day are, or thereafter become, members of the metropolitan civil staffs.
  (2A) The Metropolitan Police Authority may, to such extent and subject to such conditions as it thinks fit, authorise the exercise of the function of administering the grant of pensions and other benefits under this section by, or by employees of, any person.
  (2B) Where a person is authorised under subsection (2A) above to exercise the function of administering the grant of pensions and other benefits under this section, anything done or omitted to be done by or in relation to him (or an employee of his) in, or in connection with, the exercise or purported exercise of the function shall be treated for all purposes as done or omitted to be done by the person who authorised him.
  (2C) Subsection (2B) above does not apply for the purposes of—

  (a) any criminal proceedings against the authorised person (or any employee of his); or

  (b) any contract between him and the person who authorised him, so far as relating to the function.

  37
  (2D) Unless the powers conferred by section 7 of the Superannuation Act 1972. paragraph 36 of Schedule 14 to the Access to Justice Act 1999 or Part XII of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 are exercised for the purpose of making provision with respect to the provision of pensions for or in respect of members of the metropolitan civil staffs, the civil service provisions shall have effect (subject to any regulations for the time being in force under subsection (3) of this section) for the purposes of the grant of pensions and other benefits under this section to or in respect of such a member".
  ( ) In subsectior (3)(b) (power by regulations to adapt civil service provisions) for "(2)(b)" there shall be substituted "(2D)".
  ( ) In subsectior. (6) (requirement to consult before making regulations) after "staffs" there shall be inserted "and with the Metropolitan Police Authority".
  ( ) In subsection (7) (continuation of payment of pre-existing pension entitlement; by Receiver), for the words from "continue" to the end there shall he substituted "be paid by the Metropolitan Police Authority".").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this small group of amendments is concerned with pensions. As your Lordships know, we wish to ensure that the organisational changes we are bringing to London do not adversely affect the terms and conditions of the staff involved. This extends to their pension rights. Amendment No 536RA makes changes to Section 15 of the Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1967, which governs the pensions of civil staff of the Metropolitan Police. These staff are members of the Metropolitan Police Civil Staff Superannuation Scheme, which is by analogy to the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme. This means that they receive the same benefits as do civil servants.
  It may be helpful if I make it clear that pension arrangements for civil staff in the Metropolitan Police are quite separate from those of police officers. Police officers are part of a national pension scheme and their pension rights are not affected by this Bill. Amendment No. 536RA is intended to meet a number of policy objectives. It supersedes the minor amendments to Section 15 which Schedule 22 to the Bill already provides.
  First, the amendment makes various changes which simply reflect the fact that the MPA will take on the employer and pension-payer roles currently undertaken by the commissioner and the receiver. Secondly, it is intended to provide that anyone who has any benefits under the MCSSS scheme as at 2nd July 2000 will not be disadvantaged when the MPA is established. At the same time, the intention is that staff who join the MPA after 2nd July 2000 will benefit also from the MCSSS scheme.
  Thirdly, the amendment provides for three circumstances in which staff currently on the MCSSS scheme might move on to another pension scheme. Those are: first, if the MPA were to set up a local government pension scheme, which, in common with other police authorities, it will have power to do by virtue of the 1972 Superannuation Act. If it did that, new employees would be placed on that scheme and existing staff would be offered the option of transferring to it.
  The second circumstance will be if an order is made under powers in Part XII of the GLA Bill to transfer MPA staff, as well as pensioners and deferred
  38
  pensioners, from the MCSSS scheme to the PCSPS scheme. As your Lordships will be aware, Clause 337 already provides that employment with the MPA is to be included among the kinds of employment to which a scheme under Section 1 of the 1972 Superannuation Act can apply. Finally, powers in the 1999 Access to Justice Act might be used to move justices' clerks in inner London off the MCSSS scheme and on to a scheme operated by the Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority, which is due to take up its full powers on 1st April 2001. Until separate arrangements are made for those staff, their pensions will be handled by the MPA.
  The aims of the amendment are entirely proper and, I hope, uncontroversial. Pensions are of course a very important matter. They can also be very complex. The technicalities of this amendment therefore require a bit of unravelling even though the policy intention which I have just described is clear. It is possible that the amendment could be refined to ensure that our policy objectives are fully met. If, on further inspection, we conclude that improvements could be made, I should beg the indulgence of the House by saying that there is a possibility of our seeking to make some refinements at Third Reading.
  Amendment No. 566A is more straightforward, so I will be brief. It inserts an extra provision into Clause 354 which requires that the Secretary of State must consult with the MPA and obtain the consent of the Minister responsible for the Civil Service before making an order under that section relating to pension transfers of MPA employees. The purpose of any such order would be to place those employees on to the PCSPS scheme. As I mentioned, Clause 337 includes the MPA among the list of bodies covered by Section 1 of the 1972 Superannuation Act. I beg to move.
  Lord Tope: My Lords, I listened carefully to the Minister. I am grateful to him for pointing out that the matter is rather technical and not too easy to follow. I shall read carefully what he said. However, I wonder whether, for clarification and for simplicity's sake, he can confirm two points on the Government's intentions, irrespective of whether this version is the final one.
  Can he confirm that there will be no alterations to the pensions actually being paid—in other words, that pension provisions will not change so far as relates to the pensioners covered under this provision? Can he further confirm that the changes being made here will not affect the budget for the Metropolitan Police service?
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I also am grateful to the Minister for pointing out that this issue is rather technical and complicated. It is extremely important, particularly for those employed or to be employed and for those who have already retired or left the service. Nevertheless, it is extremely complex, as pensions provisions often are.

  39
  Several different groups of civilians are involved in the provisions. First, the civilian staff of the Metropolitan Police; secondly, the court staff who have been under receiver; and, thirdly, the probation staff, who have also been paid through the receiver of the Metropolitan Police for historical reasons.
  Within each of those three groups there are existing staff who have built up pension rights for their length of service. There will be retired staff already on pensions, and there will no doubt be some staff who have left employment, who have deferred their pensions and who are waiting until they reach pensionable age. For each group within each staff bracket, we should like an assurance that those concerned will not be worse off but will continue to have the same entitlements, or receive the same amount of pension, as they have done until now.
  I cannot quite understand the timing. Some of these provisions seem to be due to begin when the Metropolitan Police Authority itself starts to function. That is, after all, the point at which an individual member of the civilian staff stops being employed by the Metropolitan Police through the receiver and becomes employed through the new police authority. However, somehow or other, the Metropolitan Police Authority is required to be consulted about the order before it is made. If the police authority has not entered into its responsibilities, it is difficult to see how it can be consulted under the terms of Amendment No. 566A.
  I may be getting the timing wrong, but it is clearly necessary that there should be a time-lag between the setting up of the Metropolitan Police Authority and the actual transfer of the employment if employees are to be properly consulted.
  4.45 p.m.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I take first the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tope. I am happy, willing and able to confirm that pensions paid prior and post to the time of transfer will be paid at the same rate. The noble Lord asked whether or not budgets would be affected. I can assure him that they will be unaffected.
  The noble Lord, Lord Cope, also raised questions. Consultation for an order to make things effective will take place after 3rd July 2000; in other words, after the MPA has come into effect. I trust that that helps the noble Lord.
  I can also assure the House that no one will be worse off as a result of the amendments. In addition, no probation staff will be on the MCSSS scheme. Only police civil staff and inner London justices' clerks will be on that scheme. I trust that that reassures the noble Lord, but I am happy to provide further elucidation if necessary.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 536S:
  Page 311, line 45, at end insert—
  ("The Firearms Act 1968
  . In section 57(4) of the Firearms Act 1968 (interpretation) in the definition of "civilian officer", paragraph (b) and the word "or" immediately preceding it shall cease to have effect.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
  Lord Lucas: My Lords, I did not object to the grouping but I want to speak to Amendment No. 536S. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could explain what is the effect of this amendment so that I and the House can understand why it does what the Minister claims it does; that is, nothing.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord has me at a disadvantage. I confess that I am struggling to find the right reference so that I may provide him with an answer that is of some value.
  As I understand it, the amendment affects the definition of a civilian officer which was inserted into Section 57(4) of the 1968 Act by Section 43 of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997. That definition is amended by deleting "or" and paragraph (b).
  Lord Lucas: My Lords, I did get that far, but the noble Lord claimed that the amendment merely tidied up the wording in order to recognise the existence of the Metropolitan Police Authority. It is not at all clear to me how this amendment comes under that rubric. I should be grateful for an explanation as to how it does.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I believe that it will fall within that rubric because the Police Act ceases to have effect. I am conscious that the noble Lord is keen on these matters. The definition of a civilian officer was inserted into the 1997 Act. It was no longer needed because people are no longer employed under the receiver. That provision relates to Amendment No. 536S. Those two matters should satisfy the noble Lord. I appreciate his keenness in those matters.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 536T to 536XB:
  Page 313, line 40, at end insert—

  The Employment Agencies Act 1973
  . In section 13(7) of the Employment Agencies Act 1973 (cases in which the Act is not to apply) after paragraph (f) there shall be inserted—
  "(fa) the exercise by the Metropolitan Police Authority of any of its functions;".").
  Page 314, line 6, leave out ("entry") and insert ("entries").
  Page 314, line 6, at end insert ("following offices—

  (a) Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis,

  (b) officer or servant employed under the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis or the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District, and

  (c)")

  Page 314, line 11, leave out ("entry") and insert ("entries").—
  Page 314, line 11, at end insert ("following offices—

  (a) Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis,

  (b) officer or servant employed under the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis or the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District, and

  (c)")

  Page 315. line 6, leave out from beginning to ("(enforceability") in line 7 and insert (".—(1) The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 shall be amended as follows.
  (21 In section 33").
  Page 315, line 9, at end insert—
  ("(3) In section 41 (lost and uncollected property) in subsection (13) in the definition of "local authority", after paragraph (ca) there shall be inserted—
  "(caa) the Metropolitan Police Authority; and".").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 536XC:
  Page 315. line 12, leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert—
  ("(2) In section 26 (exercise of police functions at designated airports), subsection (4) (which makes provision for the application of the section in the case of the metropolitan police district) shall cease to have effect.
  (3) In section 29(2) (entitlement of traffic wardens to exercise functions at designated airports) in paragraph (a) the words from "(or," to "metropolis)" shall cease to have effect.
  (4) In section 30(3) (transfers of officers and staff) in paragraph (c) the words from "or, if that area is the metropolitan" onwards shall cease to have effect.
  (5) In section 31(1) (interpretation) the definition of "members of the metropolitan civil staffs" shall cease to have effect.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
  Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for thinking that this Report stage exists just for me. However, I believe that the House needs to understand the amendments that it is passing. Many of the points are self-evident. Although one is prepared to take it on trust, the amendments do in fact do what they appear to do and what the Minister says they do.
  Amendment No. 536XC becomes a little more complicated. It is not clear on the face of it that this is consequential on the creation of the Metropolitan Police Authority. I should be grateful for a swift explanation from the Minister as to why the creation of the Metropolitan Police Authority necessitates this and why the amendment does no more than reflect that.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, lest the House should believe that it is only my noble friend who is interested in this matter, I, too, should be grateful for an explanation.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I must confess that this matter is proving more taxing than I had imagined it might otherwise be. That is not to say that I am to be entirely defeated by these very important points as they arise.
  42
  Amendment No. 536XC amends the Aviation Security Act 1982. It reflects an amendment in relation to the Metropolitan Police district. I believe that should help the noble Lord.
  Amendments Nos. 536XA and 536XB define the MPA as a local authority for the purposes of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982. We all know that that is important because it affects property in local authority premises. The provision brings the MPA into line with other public authorities. I trust that that satisfies the noble Lord's inquiries.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 536XD to 536XG:
  Page 315, line 22, leave out paragraph 45 and insert—
  ("45.—(1) Section 97 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (supplementary provisions as to traffic wardens) shall be amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (1) (application of regulations) the words "employed outside the metropolitan police district" shall cease to have effect.
  (3) Subsection (4) (wardens in the metropolitan police district) shall cease to have effect.").
  Page 317, line 14, at end insert—
  (Monitoring officers
  . In section 5 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (designation and reports of monitoring officer) in subsection (1) (duty to designate officer as monitoring officer) after "Police Act 1996" there shall be inserted "or the Metropolitan Police Authority".").
  Page 317, line 19, at end insert—
  ("Financial provisions
  . In section 157 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (commutation of payments to local authorities) in subsection (6) (meaning of "local authority") for paragraph (f) there shall he substituted—
  "(f) the Metropolitan Police Authority;".").
  Page 317, line 30, at end insert ("; and

  (b) at the end there shall be inserted "or the Metropolitan Police Authority".").

  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 537:
  Page 324, line 41, leave out (""subsection") and insert (""subsections (4) to").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, after that piece of excitement perhaps we can turn to borough police community consultative groups.
  In moving Amendment No. 537, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 538. The existing police community consultative arrangements are currently borough-based and therefore equate with local government boundaries in London. On these Benches, we wish to see that preserved. That is what Amendments Nos. 537 and 538 seek to achieve.
  The police consultative groups in London, their coordinators and the voluntary organisations involved with them also feel strongly that they wish to see the existing structures continue. Our case is that the arrangements now enshrined in the Police Act 1996

  43
  which were formerly in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 have worked extremely well for 15 years. They should not simply be done away with as part of this Bill. That would be a retrograde step.
  The present borough consultative arrangements were set up in the aftermath of the traumatic Brixton disorders in 1981. As a long-standing Lambeth resident, I saw the way in which those consultative arrangements came into being, as recommended by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman. I have also seen the success which they have had, and I detailed that at greater length in Committee.
  We believe that without that statutory structure there will be a temptation simply to move forward with a statutory structure of partnership under the Crime and Disorder Act with local authorities and with the Probation Service, but not taking account adequately of local borough interests. Indeed, in the Metropolitan Police Service's report of 1998–99 I can find no reference to police consultative groups. I believe that that is an unfortunate pointer. We do not believe that it is right to abolish the existing borough basis of consultation.
  Ministers claimed in Committee that the Bill as currently drafted will do nothing to affect the statutory basis of the current arrangements. However, a former Home Office Minister, Kate Hoey, said in another place that the police community consultative groups will be secure if they work well. Does that mean that some will be allowed to fall by the wayside? Perhaps the Minister can explain.
  The 1996 Act, as currently drafted, is very clear. It ensures that consultation takes place on a borough-byborough basis. However, paragraph 98 of Schedule 22 of the current Bill deletes this statutory duty. That simply leaves subsection (2), which is far less specific as to the borough basis of consultation.
  In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said that the current PCCGs were creatures of guidance rather than statute. I hope the Minister will be able to elucidate that. Is the MPS currently not complying with the 1996 Police Act? That is the implication of what the Minister said. However, during that part of the Committee stage the hour was late. It may be that we can all benefit from a re-run at a rather earlier hour. Perhaps the Minister would then be able to give us more details.
  The basis of the Minister's case seems to have been that London should be treated the same as any other part of the United Kingdom, and that therefore there should be no prescription about the geographical area of the consultative groups. However, the natural and logical area for such consultation in London is the borough. And "if it ain't broke, why fix it"? What is the underlying motive for these amendments? Some groups may need to be made more effective in London. Some of those borough consultative groups may indeed need to be made more effective. But surely that is a rather different issue. I beg to move.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the amendments standing in my name and that of my noble friend which
  44
  are grouped with the noble Lord's amendments achieve the same effect. We believe that our drafting is to be preferred. It is a little more elaborate than that of the noble Lord. However, I do not emphasise that point.
  I agree with the comments made by the noble Lord. However, there is some confusion about what the borough's place is supposed to be. Very wisely, the Metropolitan Police have moved towards borough policing. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 provides that every London borough, like other local authorities elsewhere, must formulate and implement a strategy for the reduction of crime and disorder within that borough. Yet, as far as I can see, the Bill attempts to remove the obligation of the Metropolitan Police to talk to the boroughs at all.
  That seems to be moving the policy in the opposite direction from the Crime and Disorder Act. I believe that some amendments, along the lines suggested by either the noble Lord or ourselves, are required.
  5 p.m.
  Lord Lucas: My Lords, I support my noble friend. These committees have performed a great service, particularly in Notting Hill where I was a resident for a long time. It is important that such committees should be related to the borough and a democratic structure rather than to something ill-defined, such as the "Notting Hill Community", or whatever. That would allow the police or other interest groups to say what the community is and by whom it should be dictated. We need to have an anchorage into democracy and into the proper, ordinary representation of the people. We should not allow these matters to drift into becoming sectional interests and unrepresentative groups. I believe that the link with the boroughs matters. I hope that the Government will consider retaining it.
  Lord Tope: My Lords, I rise to support the comments of my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones. Whether or not there is justification, there is still considerable concern among the borough police consultative groups as to their future. That concern was added to rather than alleviated by the discussion we had in Committee.
  It would help greatly if, when replying, the Minister could state clearly and unequivocally that the Government have no intention of changing or seeing changed the present arrangements for borough-based police consultative groups; that they will remain as presently constituted unless and until at some unspecified time in the future the new Metropolitan Police Authority may deem it appropriate to review such arrangements.
  No doubt if and when that authority takes that view, it will do so with full and proper consultation. However, that is some time in the indefinite future, if ever. For the present, we and, more particularly, the police consultative groups, seek clear and unequivocal reassurance from the Government that the groups will

  45
  continue in existence as presently constituted after the establishment of the Greater London Authority and, with it, the Metropolitan Police Authority.
  Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, stated that we might have a re-run of the debate we had in Committee because, I understood him to say, it was late at night. Every night we have here is late at night. If we had to have a re-run of everything because it was late at night, it would not do. I also have to say, with great respect, that it might be out of order, especially on Report. I appeal to my noble friend not to accede to that request.
  I have sat through many of the debates on this Bill and others. As noble Lords opposite have commented, some of these matters are complicated. However, on the whole our Ministers have dealt with them with great clarity. In those circumstances, I hope we can make progress. We, on these Benches, are anxious for the Bill to pass as soon as possible.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I support my noble friend's approach. I understand entirely the term he used; namely, "re-run", even though it is a shorthand term. On a number of occasions we have, indeed, sat pretty late debating this Bill. We have criticisms of that practice. I shall speak for our Benches. I do not wish to be too pejorative as regards other Members of your Lordships' House but, frankly, I have felt my own performance deteriorating as the hour has gone on. If one reads Hansard, it is perfectly clear that the later the hour, the shorter the comments and responses from the Government and the more one needs to work hard to understand what is said. Very often, answers seem to be given to points which have not been made but which the Government thought might be made.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for that thoughtful contribution about the way in which business is transacted in this House at a late hour. I must confess that the other night, when doing exactly that, I was struggling to stay awake even as I read the words. However, it was 1.30 a.m., so I believe that I was justified.
  I am intrigued by this debate. It seems to have been hatched and formulated by way of being more of a conspiracy theory than anything based on reality. As the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, made plain in Committee, I can assure the House that the aim of paragraph 98 of Schedule 22 is to bring the statutory arrangements for consulting the public in London on policing matters into line with those which operate elsewhere. Those which operate elsewhere do so primarily to local government boundaries, as they quite properly should.
  We oppose the amendments because they would create a situation inconsistent with police authorities outside London. The amendments, in effect, leave the responsibility for making consultative arrangements in the Metropolitan Police District with the commissioner. They also require separate arrangements to be made for each borough. Such
  46
  provisions are inconsistent with the creation of the MPA. Our view is not that borough-based consultation is wrong—far from it—but that decisions on such matters should rest with the MPA. After all, the MPA is to be entrusted with conducting affairs on behalf of the Metropolitan Police Service. That, therefore, seems entirely logical. We do not believe that it should be determined simply by primary legislation.
  Outside London, police authorities are trusted to take these decisions and it would be wrong to treat the MPA differently. I do not accept the argument that the size and diversity of the population of London justifies special provisions. Other police authorities are faced with populations which are also varied and spread over a much wider geographical area.
  It might have made sense, in the absence of a locally and democratically accountable police authority, to require that the commissioner draw up separate arrangements for consultation. As pointed out by the Home Secretary at Second Reading in another place, the last Home Secretary with a constituency in the Metropolitan Police District was, oddly enough, the noble Lord, Lord Carr. But this argument can no longer apply from 3rd July 2000, with the advent and creation of the MPA.
  I recognise the need for all sections of the community to have their voice and I have no doubt that it will be a top priority of the MPA to ensure that it has effective means of obtaining the views of local people. Indeed, our establishment of such a body demonstrates the importance we, in Government, place on consultation and can only increase the role it will play in the policing of London.
  In practice, there are several reasons for believing that the MPA will adopt a borough-based approach to its consultation. First, it is a logical approach. Secondly, the Metropolitan Police is moving towards a borough-based system of policing, and in areas outside London, police authorities tend to establish consultation arrangements which fit in with the police force structure. Thirdly, each London borough has its own crime reduction strategy, in which the MPA will be a key partner. For that reason, if no other, it seems to us to make perfect sense for consultation to be based on borough boundaries.
  At the same time, I have little doubt that certain common or strategic issues will arise where consultation needs to be carried out across several London boroughs, or even the whole police area, and other issues, again which are of concern to areas much smaller than a London borough, where consultation at a neighbourhood level would be the best solution.
  In short, there will be many circumstances under which the need for consultation will arise and many ways of responding to them. But, as I have said, I would expect the MPA to view borough-based consultation as an important and critical part of this.
  Concern has again been expressed about the future of police community consultative groups. This was a matter we discussed in Committee. As we have repeatedly stressed, the Bill does not adversely affect

  47
  the status of PCCGs. Neither the transfer of duty from the commissioner to the MPA nor the removal of the requirement that consultation be borough-based jeopardises the position of existing PCCGs. I trust that that reassures your Lordships.
  The purpose of PCCGs is to assist police authorities—or, in the MPD, the commissioner—in discharging their duty to obtain the views of the community on policing matters. It will be for the MPA to decide how best to discharge that duty. Many PCCGs in London do good work, and we warmly applaud them for it. I would be surprised if the MPA chose to dismantle the existing system of PCCGs for so long as it considered that they had a part to play in capturing the views of Londoners. No single method of consultation is likely to provide the MPA with all the input it needs from the public, but PCCGs can be a key part of the consultative system and will continue to be so.
  My officials are in contact with PCCG representatives. We will ensure that the views of PCCGs are put fully and fairly to the incoming MPA members as part of the training and induction programme we will be putting in place.
  Police authorities outside London are responsible for consulting the public about policing matters and are not constrained by local government boundaries; they are advised by them. The Government see no reason why we should discriminate against the MPA in the way proposed in these amendments. The MPA will be a local, democratic and representative body and we should treat it as such. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will be reassured by what I have said and feel able to withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his considered reply. He gave us more than he did in Committee to provide reassurance to the community consultative groups. I recognise in the way the Minister used his words—talking about the valuable role that the PCCGs carry out—that it is probable that they will be borough based and that it is unlikely that, where those groups are effective, they will be discontinued; further, that the changes in the Bill do not in his view adversely affect the status of those PCCGs. However, at the end of the day the Bill seeks flexibility for the MPA in the way that those PCCGs are or are not treated. There is a discretion whether to treat them on a borough basis. In other words, the geography will be entirely in the hands of the MPA.
  It is that lack of statutory underpinning which makes the PCCGs vulnerable. I recognise that the Minister does not believe that the Bill adversely affects the status of the PCCGs, but by its nature it must. They are borough-based PCCGs and could be disbanded and replaced with a PCCG based on two, three or four boroughs; their job could be changed. Therefore, though I accept that some reassurance has been given by the Minister, it is not the total reassurance that the PCCGs—which are based on a borough basis—are seeking. In the circumstances it is perhaps not
  48
  appropriate to press the amendment, but we will consider the Minister's words and may well come back at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 537A to 538 not moved.]
  5.15 p.m.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 538A:
  Page 325, line 10, after ("(1)") insert (", or

  (b) if no agreement is in force under that subsection in relation to the function or functions in question, to a standard which the Secretary of State considers to be satisfactory.").

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 538A and 538B seek to amend the Bill's provisions in relation to the Metropolitan Police's national and international functions. Amendment No. 538A enables the Secretary of State to direct the MPA to take specified measures when he is not satisfied with the Met's performance of its national or international functions, even where the functions in question are not covered by a service level agreement between the Secretary of State and the MPA. Amendment No. 538B ensures that the MPA's responsibilities extend to all the Met's national and international functions. It also makes clear that those particular functions are included within those of the force when the Secretary of State considers whether to set a minimum budget for the MPA under Clause 81 of the Bill.
  Schedule 22, paragraph 99, which inserts a new Section 96A into the 1996 Police Act, provides at present that,
  "(1) The Secretary of State and the Metropolitan Police Authority may enter into agreements with respect to the level of performance to be achieved by the metropolitan police force in respect of any of its national or international functions.
  (2) If the Secretary of State is of the opinion that the metropolitan police force is not performing any or all of its national or international functions to the standard specified …he may direct the MPA to take [specified] measures".
  So the Secretary of State is able to make directions where he has a service level agreement with the MPA. But what happens if he is unable to reach agreement with the MPA on the performance of any or indeed all of those functions? As things stand, he would be unable to make a direction. That is a loophole in the legislation. Amendment No. 538A closes that loophole.
  Amendment No. 538B closes a couple more loopholes. The functions of police authorities, which will apply to the MPA from next July, are generally framed in the 1996 Police Act in terms of the police force area. Some of the Metropolitan Police's national and international functions, by their very nature, take place or relate to matters outside the metropolitan police district. This amendment makes clear that the MPA's responsibilities apply to those particular functions as they do to the rest of the Met's work.
  Those responsibilities include the principal police authority function to secure the maintenance of an efficient and effective police force as well as the duty to produce local policing objectives, plans and annual reports by police authorities and chief constables. This amendment also ensures that the provision in Clause 81 for the Secretary of State to set a minimum budget for the MPA in order to maintain or restore an efficient and effective police force includes within its scope the MPS' national and international functions. That clause currently refers to maintaining a force for the police force area, so could otherwise have excluded from its scope same of the national or international activities. I beg to move.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, perhaps the Minister can clarify Amendment No. 538A. I understand the need to plug the loophole. I understand also that the provision needs to be read in the context of the minimum budget providing for national and international functions, to which the noble Lord referred. However, it seems to put the matter in the hands of the Secretary of State in a way which enables him to deal with them subjectively; there seems to be no objective test of what is satisfactory. The Secretary of State may require that the standard is what he considers to be satisfactory under Amendment No. 538A. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that the term "reasonable" should be implied; in other words, that it should be to a reasonably satisfactory standard or something to that effect.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I simply want to add that the national and international functions of the Metropolitan Police are of the greatest importance. Some of us, including me, have had reason to appreciate some of the national work of the Metropolitan Police Federal Branch in particular, though that is only one example.
  That makes me glad that the Home Office and the Secretary of State are still to be closely involved in these matters and to oversee them. It is inevitable that there will be duplication of responsibility between the police authority and the Secretary of State, and hence a potential area for disagreement, not only on money but also on other matters. That is to be regretted but it is unavoidable; it is inherent in the policy of abolishing the Secretary of State as the police authority for the metropolis and creating the Metropolitan Police Authority. That said, it is important that the Secretary of State should be involved in the national and international functions.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, for his supportive comments with regard to the amendments and for the valuable role of the Secretary of State in these matters. He is right that there will need to be a continued involvement, albeit of a different quality and nature.
  Perhaps I may take the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, with regard to "subjectiveness" and the question of"
  50
  reasonableness". In applying the satisfactory test, we can read into the wording the term "reasonableness". That applies to other requirements placed on Ministers, whose actions are, of course, subject to judicial review. Therefore, we will have to have due regard to the test of reasonableness in all circumstances. That applies in particular to the provisions contained in Amendment No. 538A.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 538B:
  Page 325, line 21, at end insert—
  ("National and international functions: application of requirements relating to reports etc.
  96B.—(1) In its application to the Metropolitan Police Authority, section 6(1) shall have effect as if the reference in subsection (1) to securing the maintenance of an efficient and effective police force for the metropolitan police district included a reference to securing that that force discharges its national or international functions efficiently and effectively.
  (2) In its application to the Metropolitan Police Authority, section 7(1) shall have effect as if the reference to the policing of the metropolitan police district included a reference to the discharge by the metropolitan police force of its national or international functions.
  (3) In its application to the Metropolitan Police Authority, section 8 shall have effect as if—

  (a) the reference in subsection (1) to the policing of the metropolitan police district included a reference to the discharge by the metropolitan police force of its national or international functions, and

  (b) the reference in subsection (2)(c) to any performance targets established by the Authority excluded any standards of performance established by it in pursuance of an agreement under subsection (1) of section 96A or a direction under subsection (2) of that section.

  (4) In its application to the Metropolitan Police Authority, section 9(1) shall have effect as if the reference to the policing of the metropolitan police district included a reference to the discharge by the metropolitan police force of its national or international functions.
  (5) In their application to the metropolitan police force, sections 22 and 44 shall have effect as if references to policing the metropolitan police district included references to the discharge by the metropolitan police force of its national or international functions.
  (6) Section 81(1) and (3) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (minimum budget for Metropolitan Police Authority) shall have effect as if the references to restoring or maintaining an efficient and effective police force for the metropolitan police district included references to securing that that force discharges its national or international functions efficiently and effectively.
  (7) Subsection (4) of section 96A shall apply for the purposes of this section as it applies for the purposes of that section.").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 538C:
  Page 326, line 3, leave out ("7,").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 538D:
  Page 326, line 7, at end insert—
  ("( ) In paragraph 3(1) (term of appointment of member of panel), after "panel" there shall be inserted "for a police area listed in Schedule I".
  ( ) After paragraph 3(1) there shall be inserted—
  "(1A) A person shall be appointed to hold office as a member of a selection panel for the police area constituted by the metropolitan police district for a term of two years."").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I believe the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, raised a question on this amendment. The grouping deals with age limits as regards Metropolitan Police Authority membership. The GLA Bill provides for a selection panel of three people to be established to start the selection process for six independent members of the MPA. The purpose of Amendment No. 538D is to remove the upper age limit of 70, which applies to being on a selection panel. We have drafted the amendment to specify that the age limit of 70 remains for selection panels for appointment to police authorities outside London. We propose to remove that age limit when removing the age limit for membership of such police authorities. I beg to move.
  Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's confirmation that that is all the provision does. It is not obvious from the wording of the amendment that that is its purpose. I take it that the two-year term is common for other police authorities and that that is not being altered by this amendment, so that it remains a standard. All that this provision does is to make it possible for a person over the age of 70 to be a member. If I have understood it correctly, I shall support the amendment.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord's question is yes.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 538E:
  Page 326, line 18, leave out ("7,").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendments Nos. 538F to 538J:
  Page 326, line 29, at end insert ("shall cease to have effect").
  Page 327, line 23, at end insert—
  (".—(1) Schedule 1 to the Police Act 1997 (appointment of members of the NCS and NCIS Service Authorities) shall be amended as follows.
  (2) In paragraph 4 (appointment of core members by local authority members of police authorities)—

  (a) at the beginning there shall be inserted "(1)", and

  (b) for "Three" there shall be substituted "Four".

  (3) After the sub-paragraph formed by sub-paragraph (2)(a) above there shall be inserted—
  "(2) Those local authority members shall exercise their powers under sub-paragraph (1) so as to ensure that one of the members appointed by them is a local authority member of the Metropolitan Police Authority."
  52
  "(4) The following provisions—

  (a) paragraph 5 (appointment by Secretary of State in his capacity as police authority for metropolitan police district),

  (b) paragraph 8(4) (Secretary of State prohibited from appointing additional member of NCIS Service Authority to represent him in that capacity), and

  (c) paragraph 10(4) (corresponding prohibition in respect of appointment of additional member of NCS Service Authority)

  shall cease to have effect.
  (5) In paragraph 14(a) (meaning of "local authority members of police authorities") for "to the Police Act 1996 (local authority members)" there shall be substituted "or paragraph 2 of Schedule 2A to the Police Act 1996 (local authority members and London Assembly members of the Metropolitan Police Authority)".
  (6) In paragraph 16 (which makes provision for the application of Schedule in the case of the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioners of Police of the Metropolis and the Commissioner of Police for the City of London) for the words from "the Commissioner and" onwards there shall be substituted "the Commissioner of Police for the City of London shall be treated as if he were a member of the City of London police force."").
  Page 327, line 25, at end insert—
  ("( ) In paragraph 1(6) (meaning of "police authority members") paragraph (b) and the word "or" preceding it shall cease to have effect.").
  Page 327, line 34, at end insert—
  ("( ) In paragraph 1(6) (meaning of "police authority members") paragraph (b) and the word "or" preceding it shall cease to have effect.").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move.
  Lord Lucas: My Lords, I suspect that the Minister will be able to satisfy me quite quickly as to what Amendment No. 538G does. Again, it is not obvious from the wording that this is merely confined to consequentials. It appears that the MPA is to be given a seat among the good and the great. Perhaps the Minister can explain whether that is purely consequential or whether it is a new additional decision. Indeed, there may be other aspects of the amendment that I have failed to understand. I should also like to point out that Amendment No. 538F is in no way consequential; it merely corrects a mistake made by draftsmen which I am delighted to see they have picked up. In fact, it has nothing to do with any of the other amendments.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, as before, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his dedication to detail. I can confirm that this is a consequential removal of the reference to the age limit. I trust that that provides the noble Lord with a satisfactory response.
  Lord Lucas: My Lords, this cannot be anything to do with the age limit. Indeed, Amendment No. 538G has nothing to do with the age limit. I hope that the Minister will take a quick look at his Marshalled List and assure me that all this relates to the bringing into

  53
  existence of the MPA and its taking a seat at some unspecified table. which will now consist of four rather than three members.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, as I said, the grouping deals with age limits. As I understand it, this amendment deals with membership.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords can the Minister say what Amendment No. 538G seeks to achieve?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is consequential upon the Home Secretary's removal as the police authority for London. Therefore, it is consistent in that regard. The amendment ensures that one MPA assembly member can sit on the boards of the NCS and NC IS. I trust that that answers the noble Lord's point.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 538K:
  After Clause 286, insert the following new clause—

  LONDON FRE BRIGADE PENSION SCHEME
  (" . The Mayor and the Assembly shall, by 2030, reconstitute the pension scheme of the London Fire Brigade moving it from the present unfunded scheme to a fully funded pension scheme.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, after the complexities of the police, the fire service would seem to be relatively simple. I apologise for bringing back this particular amendment at this stage, but I have done so in order to press the Minister a little harder on the issue of the fire service pensions.
  For anyone who is in the fire service, the security of his or her future pension is a matter of great significance; and, indeed, for anyone who is about to enter the service it is equally a matter of great significance. However, in both those instances, the time-scale of consideration goes considerably beyond the time-scale which politicians are normally invited to consider as being significant. In particular, the pensions conside:7ation of someone at the age of 25, while looking into the possibility of receiving a pension at the age of 60, is dramatically outwith the normal five-year time-scale that politicians are wont to consider, especially in the other place.
  The fortunate situation that this country is in vis-àvis its national pension liabilities arises in large part because a great proportion of pension liability is covered by funded schemes. In this instance, we have a particular service—the fire service—which does not have such a scheme. The Minister assured us in Committee that the Government should, and only "should", continue to cover the long-term costs of the fire pension scheme.
  The Government have a review in place. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister something about the time-scale which they envisage before this matter is brought to a conclusion. It has been around for a very long time, and I do not deny the difficulty surrounding the problem. I accept that it is somewhat difficult in a Bill vis-à-vis London to deal with a matter which has national implications because, as the Minister said, it
  54
  would not perhaps be proper to approach the matter exclusively on London's behalf. However, if we were to deal with the matter on London's behalf and resolve it, that would create a catalyst and I believe that the Government would then be obliged to act to deal with the national problem as well. Therefore I do not wholly accept the argument that we should not deal with the issue.
  However, the real purpose of bringing the measure back was to press the Minister a little harder on the Government's view of the possibility of a solution to this matter arising. No one who has had direct experience of the present situation, particularly in a local authority context, but even as regards the fire service generally, can possibly be satisfied with the existing situation. I accept that the problem has been around for a considerable time. The longer it goes on, the worse it gets and the more difficult it is to find an acceptable solution. I would be grateful to hear that at least we have some prospect of a conclusion in a reasonable political timescale, in other words, in the next two, three, four or five years. I accept that as a reasonable timescale for dealing with a matter of this significance. However, even that kind of timescale is beyond the normal range of timescales which politicians consider to be significant. I beg to move.
  5.30 p.m.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, I am almost persuaded by my noble friend's argument in broad terms but I am rather surprised that he has chosen the year 2030 which, after all, is 30 years' time, before this reconstituted pension scheme shall come into force. I remember once that a Labour prime minister said that a week was a long time in politics.
  Lord Tope: My Lords, if the Government were to resolve this problem next week I am sure that we would be as grateful as we would be surprised. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, apologised for bringing back this amendment. I assure him that no apologies are necessary. I am grateful to him for bringing back the amendment. I hope that he succeeds in what I think is his real objective; namely, to seek greater clarification from the Government on their intentions in dealing with what he rightly describes as a major and growing problem.
  The unfunded pension schemes for the London fire service, and I think all fire services, are a considerable problem now. There is no question but that that impinges already on the operational ability of the fire service and as the problem grows, that problem too will grow. The problem is of such magnitude that only government action can deal with it. I do not know whether the amendment proposed here is necessarily the right way to tackle it—I suspect that perhaps it is not—but I wholly support what I think are the real intentions of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, in moving it.
  I also agree with his view that although this is a nation-wide problem there is no reason that we should not take this opportunity in a London Bill to let London take the lead in this matter. As London has

  55
  the biggest fire service I imagine that it has the biggest problem in this regard. The Government have already set that precedent in removing the age discrimination for membership of the Police Authority. I accept that that provision has rather fewer financial implications than the matter we are discussing, but nevertheless the principle has been established; namely, the Government have taken the legislative opportunity that is now before us to allow London to lead the way where they intend that the rest of the country should follow. I hope that the Minister in his reply will acknowledge that there is a major problem which requires government action to resolve; that he will tell us how and when that government action is to be taken, and that he will perhaps tell us that the opportunity presented by this Bill will enable us to tackle the problem first in London as regards the London fire service.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, this problem seems to follow me round. I recall that as an official I had to deal with fire service pensions. Therefore it is not altogether unfamiliar territory.
  The Opposition amendment seeks to change the firefighters' pension scheme from its present unfunded basis to a fully funded scheme during the course of the next 30 years. As this is the length of service which a firefighter needs for a full pension, presumably the intention would be to start future new entrants in a funded scheme so that there would be a gradual transition to full funding over that period.
  The firefighters' pension scheme is a national scheme which is set out in an order made under the Fire Services Act 1947. The Government cannot accept changes which affect one fire brigade but not others. On the question of consistency, the Government are proposing a minor technical amendment to legislation affecting fire service pensions. In order for public service pensions increase legislation to apply pension awards payable by the LFEPA in the same way as it does to the current fire authority, a minor amendment is required to the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971. Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act lists various types of pensions which are "official pensions" for the purposes of that Act. The present fire authority comes within the definition of a local authority for the purposes of the 1971 Act, and the proposed amendment will ensure that the LFEPA is treated in the same way.
  Turning to the Opposition amendment, we recognise that there is concern about rising pensions costs. The firefighters' pension scheme in common with a number in the public service does not have a pensions fund. One of the main purposes of pension funds—to protect employees' pension rights—does not arise as the benefits are guaranteed by statute. The Government have recognised the extra pensions costs for fire authorities in recent local government finance settlements and in the Comprehensive Spending Review by including additional amounts for pensions in the fire share of total standard spending. In addition, a pension factor is included in the grant
  56
  distribution formula. The value of this factor has been adjusted to take account of trends in pensions expenditure. The distribution to individual brigades is based on projections by the Government Actuary's Department of each brigade's relative share of the overall pensions expenditure.
  A change to "new entrant" funding would not provide an easy solution to the fire authority's concerns about rising pensions costs. In fact over the next few years it would be likely to make matters worse. The authority would still carry the costs of existing pensions and of the new retirements for those pensioned under the existing scheme. But it would start to lose income from the employee contributions (11 per cent. of pay) from new entrants. These would have to go into the fund.
  A review of the provisions of the FPS was published as a consultation document last year. Ministers have been considering the position in the light of the responses. The Government have recently announced (as of 14th October) an independent inquiry into the future arrangements for determining firefighters' conditions of service, but have made it clear that there will be no changes to firefighters' pensions while the inquiry is sitting.
  I hope that, having registered their concerns, the noble Lord will now withdraw the amendment. I commend the government amendment.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, for supporting me once again as regards this issue. I say to my noble friend Lord Renton that the year 2030 seems to me to provide a reasonable transition time from a wholly unfunded scheme to a wholly funded scheme. That does not mean that it would have to be done that way; it could be done by the Government taking a decision to capitalise the fund on a particular date and making the funds available. Certainly I believe that there would be rejoicing all round if such a solution were to come about.
  I am grateful for the Minister's response in which he took some care to assure us that the situation is adequately covered, particularly from the point of view of the pensioners for whom we must all feel concern, but also from the point of view of fire authorities across the country. Although the SSA for fire may have been adequately adjusted as regards future pensions liabilities, most fire authorities take the view that it has not been adequately adjusted. However, they are of course looking at the broad spread of their liabilities and the cost of providing a wide service. Behind that there is the issue of what is included in the standard spending assessment of the fire service. Not everything that the fire services carry out on the public's behalf is properly included in the standard spending assessment.
  That said, it has been worth while to bring the matter back. However, in the light of the Minister's reply, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Schedule 23 [The London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority]:
  Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 538L:
  Page 328, line 6, leave out ("appointed by the Mayor") and insert ("elected by the Assembly").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 538L I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 538M to 538Q.
  Schedule 23 provides that the new London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority shall have 17 members, of whom nine shall be assembly members. Here we return to the issue we dealt with earlier in relation to the Metropolitan Police Authority of who should appoint the assembly members. It is our contention that the assembly members should be appointed by the assembly from which they come; they should not be foisted upon the assembly by the mayor.
  I shall not repeat all the arguments we had earlier. I suspect that they are well known to your Lordships as I have mentioned them once or twice. However, there is an additional point. Schedule 21, which relates to the Metropolitan Police Authority, states specifically that,
  "twelve of those members shall be members of the London Assembly".
  Schedule 23, which relates to the membership of the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, describes specifically the nine assembly members as "the assembly representatives". Beyond any doubt they are described here not as the mayor's representatives but as the assembly's representatives. If, as the Bill states quite clearly, they are the assembly's representatives, it must be a fundamental democratic provision that the assembly should have the authority to appoint its own representatives.
  I suspect that the Minister will tell me that it is essential that the mayor appoints these representatives in order to maintain his strategic role in relation to the authority. I shall be a little surprised if I do not hear some words to that effect. We have made it clear that that is not our view, but if that is the Government's intention then the schedule should state clearly that they are the mayor's representatives. The mayor has appointed them; they are there to maintain the mayor's strategic role. By any definition they are the mayor's representatives, but the schedule states that they should be the assembly's representatives.
  If we had been at an earlier stage of the Bill I would have accepted that this was a relatively minor point; that the Bill was poorly drafted and would be corrected. But we are at the end of an extremely long process. We are dealing with a point that we raised specifically in Committee. The Government have presumably considered the matter further—although perhaps not in great detail—and have decided that the members mentioned in Schedule 23 should continue to be described as the assembly's representatives, unlike the description used in relation to the Metropolitan Police Authority.
  I return to the point that if the assembly members are representing the assembly, the assembly should appoint them. I beg to move.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, my Amendment No. 538R is grouped with these amendments. It deals with a small procedural point. Schedule 23 on page 328 deals with the tenure of office. In view of the relatively short period in office that members of the tire and emergency planning authority will have, it is right that they should be eligible for reappointment. That is fine. Paragraph 2(3) states:
  "The Mayor may at any time, by giving notice to a member of the Fire etc Authority, terminate the member's appointment, if he is satisfied that the member is unable or unfit for any reason to discharge his functions as a member".
  That is fine. One has no problems with any of that. However, the schedule goes on to say that anyone whose appointment has ceased for any reason may be eligible for reappointment.
  It would appear from the way the schedule is drafted—it may be that I have a silly mind—that someone may have his appointment terminated because he is not able to discharge his functions properly, or is unfit, or whatever. It seems unreasonable that in those circumstances he should be eligible for reappointment. This raises the question of what is the definition of "unfit"? If unfit means that he has a medical problem, then clearly he is not unsuitable. However, "unfit" could mean "unsuitable".
  We feel the definition needs to be tightened up, which is what Amendment No. 538 seeks to do.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats were considered in Committee both here and in another place. They seek to change the mayor's relationship to the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority. The mayor would no longer have any role in the appointment process for the assembly representatives on the fire authority.
  The amendments seek to sever the constitutional links between the mayor and the fire authority. These links are important if the new arrangements are to function effectively. They ensure that the authority is suitably accountable to the mayor for the service that it provides.
  The Conservative amendment would mean that the mayor would have the power to reappoint a former member whose appointment had been terminated on the grounds of being unable to perform his or her duties, but not if it was a question of the member being unfit to do so. These words are traditionally used together in a single phrase to cover the range of circumstances in which a person should be removed from office. Separating them causes problems. If a member has suffered serious injury, he or she might be unable, unfit or both.
  A mayor who has terminated a member's appointment because he is "unfit" in the sense perhaps intended by the noble Lord, is most unlikely to wish to

  59
  reappoint that individual. Admittedly, a different mayor might take a different view, but the member concerned would have to have been either nominated by the boroughs or elected to the assembly. For a seriously ill member whose appointment has been terminated, it seems inappropriate to include in the Bill a provision under which the mayor would be prohibited from appointing that person again upon recovery.
  In view of my responses, I would ask the noble Lords to withdraw their amendments.
  5.45 p.m.
  Lord Tope: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can he tell us why the Government have chosen specifically in this schedule to describe the nine assembly members as "the assembly representatives"? Why are they doing that? Would it not be better more honestly to describe them as "the mayor's representatives"? Why do not they follow the precedent set in Schedule 21 for the police authority and simply state:
  "nine … shall be Assembly members appointed by the Mayor".?
  Why specifically describe them as assembly representatives when they are not representing the assembly at all?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the term is used as a shorthand way of referring to members of the LFEPA who are members of the assembly. This allows a distinction to be drawn in the schedule between LFEPA members who are assembly members and those who are councillors. It means nothing more.
  Lord Tope: My Lords, I do not think the Minister convinced himself. He certainly has not convinced me. I will not embarrass him further by asking him why the Government have not made similar distinctions in Schedule 21—which relates to the Metropolitan Police Authority—between those who are assembly members, those who are independent members, those who are magistrates, and so on. I have made my point very clearly. I have won the argument but I do not think I will win the battle. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 538M to 538R not moved.]
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 539:
  Page 329, line 15, at end insert—
  ("Allowances not to be paid to members who are also Assembly members
  .—(1) The allowances specified in sub-paragraph (2) below shall not be paid to members of the Fire etc Authority who are also members of the Assembly.
  (2) The allowances are—

  (a) allowances under section 175 of the Local Government Act 1972 (allowances for attending conferences and meetings) other than an allowance for travelling and subsistence; and

  60

  (b) allowances under section 18 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (schemes for basic, attendance and special responsibility allowances).").

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 24 [Amendments relating to the Fire etc Authority]:
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 539XA:
  Page 332, line 44, at end insert—
  ("The Pensions (Increase) Act 1971
  Meaning of local authority
  (" . In Schedule 3 to the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 (meaning of local authority) after paragraph 6(1)(a)(ia) there shall be inserted—
  "(ib) the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority:".").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 290 [Discharge of functions]:
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 539YA and 539ZA:
  Page 163, line 5, leave out ("for").
  Page 163, line 7, leave out from ("authority") to end of line 11 and insert ("shall be treated as if it included a reference to a person who is disqualified under section 20 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 from being elected or being the Mayor of London or a member of the London Assembly.-").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, these amendments deal with the power of the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority to co-opt on to its committees and sub-committees individuals who are not members of the authority. The need for the amendments has emerged as a result of discussions and correspondence with representatives of the current fire authority and the Association of London Government. The effect of Clause 290(2) of the Bill as it stands at present is that a person may not be a co-opted member of a committee of the LFEPA unless he or she is a member of a London borough council, the Common Council or the GLA. This is rather more prescriptive than the present arrangements; and so the intention of the proposed amendments is to bring the Bill much more into line with existing law.
  We are proposing to amend Clause 290(2) to the effect that a person may not be co-opted on to an LFEPA committee if disqualified from being an assembly member under Clause 20 of the Bill or a member of a local authority under Part V of the Local Government Act 1972. These amendments have been the subject of considerable consultation. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 292 [The spatial development strategy]:
  Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 539A:
  Page 163, line 23, at end insert ("which shall include an appraisal of the sustainability of its policies and proposals").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 539A I shall speak also to Amendment No. 539B. Amendment No. 539A is a significant amendment, while Amendment No. 539B is relatively less important.
  Amendment No. 539A seeks to include the issue of sustainability in the mayor's spatial development strategy. There was considerable debate on the matter in Committee. On 27th July the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, quoted from the debate in another place where the Minister argued that the Government could not be specific about a sustainability appraisal because as yet,
  "there is no national guidance on what such an appraisal might comprise or on how it should be conducted".
  The noble Baroness then commented:
  "That seems to me to be remarkably unambitious for London".
  I entirely agree with the noble Baroness. The Minister in this House then responded to a point I made at the time by saying that this would form,
  "one element within a wider sustainability appraisal which also considered the economic and social impacts of the policies and proposals of the SDS".—[Official Report, 27/7/99; col. 1454.]
  That is, the strategic development strategy. I am sorry, the spatial development strategy. My daughter's initials used to be SDS and every time I see those initials I seem to go into a state of mental confusion. I hope that the House will forgive me.
  We have returned to the business of the Bill being a London Bill for Londoners, and thus all about London. The response of the Minister in another place and the response of the Minister in this place seem to suggest that the only people who have any brains and who are capable of working out a policy for sustainability exist in the Government. I do not accept that proposition. I have immense confidence and faith in those already involved in local government. Let us hope that the Government have some faith in those who work in the Government Office for London. If the Government are not yet themselves certain of what would be involved in a sustainability strategy as part of a spatial development strategy, or at least a sustainability assessment, perhaps it would be wiser to leave the matter to the mayor and the assembly so that they can reach their own conclusions on it.
  If, subsequent to that, a form of national guidance were produced as to what should or should not be included, then of course the mayor's spatial development strategy could be amended accordingly. Not the least of our complaints from these Benches in the past has been that the Minister has too much power to direct the mayor on what should or should not be included or amended. I do not believe that that approach is reasonable and propel. If the Greater London Authority was given the responsibility for providing a sustainability assessment of the mayor's spatial development strategy, it would do so. What is more, I am sure that that assessment would be reasonable and would take all matters into account. Such a responsibility might complicate the issue of devising the spatial development strategy and could make the process, marginally longer, though I doubt that it would have much effect. This is a perfectly reasonable provision to include on the face of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will give it serious consideration.
  I shall speak briefly to Amendment No. 539B. This is a small matter. The Bill as drafted states:
  62
  "(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, the Mayor may publish the spatial development strategy".
  We feel that "may" is an inappropriate term and that "shall" would work better here. I entirely accept that this is entirely an exercise in semantics, and I daresay that the Minister will respond by saying that this is the normal form in legislation and that the word "may" is normally used. That may be so. The Minister may say that it should be so, but I believe that there may be reason here to change what has always happened in the past. I have often argued that everything that is done could be done better. This is one of those occasions. I beg to move.
  6p.m.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I note that Amendment No. 539A seeks to add words to a subsection of Clause 292 which states that the spatial development strategy "must"—neither "may" nor "shall". The question of an appraisal of sustainability is certainly one that we on these Benches support. Well, we would, wouldn't we, because we moved a similar amendment at the previous stage. My noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer spoke to it. As the noble Lord said, the Government confirmed at that stage that there should be a full appraisal of the spatial development strategy impact within a wider appraisal, including social and economic impacts, and anticipated that guidance would deal with that.
  We became fairly well accustomed to being told that matters which we felt ought to be on the face of the Bill when they were good would find their way into guidance or regulations. During the course of proceedings on the Bill I have become increasingly convinced of the importance of the role of the members of the assembly in their scrutiny function, which needs to be interpreted in a very wide sense. Ensuring the sustainability of the strategy will be one of those functions. If the Minister is not minded to accept the amendment at this stage, will he say that such an appraisal is not proscribed and indeed that the mayor and the assembly through its role may ensure that it happens?
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, in replying to Amendment No. 539A, I have not a lot to add to what I said in Committee. We agree that it would be sensible for the mayor to carry out the sustainability appraisal, and guidance will provide for that. The problem is, first, that the sustainability appraisal will be somewhat wider than relating to the element of this clause. This is the environmental dimension. As the noble Lord and the noble Baroness said, I have already indicated that it would be a somewhat wider one.
  Secondly, the sustainability appraisal as a concept—as a term of art—is in its infancy and may well change over time. We therefore do not wish to be prescriptive on the face of the Bill but prefer to deal with the matter in guidance. Indeed, we have given a commitment that our guidance on the production of this strategy will advise the mayor that an appraisal should be carried out. But that guidance can change over time as appraisal techniques improve over time. Perhaps

  63
  I may also mention that the findings will be embraced in a forthcoming revision of Planning Policy Guidance Note 11 on regional planning guidance. That underlines the fact that it will be included in the guidance to the mayor. I recognise the desire of the noble Lord to put this provision on the face of the Bill. But I think that it is an evolving concept and one that is broader than this point in the Bill.
  As far as concerns Amendment No. 539B, my recollection is that in Committee the noble Lord referred to it as a matter of taste and now regards it as a matter of semantics. It is the normal form of words. In this case the term "may" is used because there is a series of conditions following it in the text that the mayor has to satisfy before he or she can publish the spatial development strategy. It is both conventional and, in this case, conditional and therefore "may" is appropriate. I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the Minister has, as usual, provided an interesting response to the points that were raised. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for her support. The noble Lord said that we should not be prescriptive on the face of the Bill. Nothing in the amendment is prescriptive as to what is involved in a sustainability assessment. It simply requires that a sustainability assessment should be a part of the spatial development strategy. From what the Minister implied—he did not say it—regulations setting out what should or should not be included in a sustainability assessment will be vastly more prescriptive than the amendment. So that seems to be a slightly peculiar reason for not accepting an amendment that requires something sensible as an addition to what is already going to happen.
  I note what the Minister had to say about a revision of planning guidance. I note also that he accepts that a sustainability assessment is an evolving concept. If it is an evolving concept, presumably at some point we shall have to face evolving planning guidance and evolving regulations in order to keep up. If we to have all of that, I cannot see why we should not have this amendment on the face of the Bill. I am tempted to take the view of the House on the matter but I am in a pacific mood. We may need to return to this matter. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 293 [Public participation]:
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 539AA:
  Page 164, line 28, at end insert ("; and

  (e) any other body to which, or person to whom, the Mayor considers it appropriate to send a copy.").

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 539AA arises from a commitment which we gave at the Committee stage to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that we would ensure that, in deciding to whom consultation copies of the spatial development strategy should be sent, the mayor is to consider not only those bodies set out in this part of the Bill but also the relevant bodies under the description
  64
  specified in Clause 27(3)—the four groups set out there. These amendments achieve that. I thank the noble Baroness for highlighting that issue. I beg to move.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, perhaps I may, in turn, thank the Minister for recognising the point and for acting on it.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 539AB:
  Page 164, line 28, at end insert—
  ("(3A) In determining the bodies to which or persons to whom it is appropriate to send a copy of the strategy under subsection (3)(e) above (if any), the bodies to which and the persons to whom the Mayor considers sending a copy must include bodies of each of the descriptions specified in section 27(3) above.").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 295[Publication]:
  [Amendment No. 539B not moved.]
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 539BA:
  Page 165, line 24, leave out ("findings reported") and insert ("report made").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 539BA, perhaps I may speak also to Amendments Nos. 539BB, 539BC, 539BD and 539C. Amendments Nos. 539BA, 539BB, 539BC and 539BD arise from government commitments in Committee to consider the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, concerning the report of the chair or panel of the examination in public into the SDS. I note that he has retabled Amendment No. 539C. Our intention is that the report of an EIP panel should include not just findings of fact but also recommendations. I know that the noble Lord was concerned that the current term "findings" may be too narrow to encompass recommendations.
  We indicated in Committee that in planning Acts and secondary legislation, the term "report" is more often used. We believe that that would be more appropriate as it requires the mayor to take account of the entirety of the panel's report including recommendations and—I am sure that the noble Lord will welcome this—any supporting argumentation and evidence. The amendments change relevant references in the Bill from "findings" to "report". I thank the noble Lord for raising the issue and trust that the amendments satisfy his concerns. I beg to move.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am pleased to acknowledge the Government's response to what was in effect my amendment No. 539C. When I tabled it again, I believe that I am right in saying that the Government had not yet got in their amendment. Otherwise, I might have been spared the necessity. This is a fortunate outcome and I am grateful to Ministers for their invention.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 539BB:
  Page 165. line 36. leave out ("findings") and insert ("report").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 539BC:
  Page 165, line 37, leave out ("have been reported") and insert ("has been made").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 296 [Examination in public]:
  The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo): My Lords, I have to inform the House that if Amendment No 539BD is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 539C.
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 539BD:
  Page 166, line 36, leave out ("report his or their findings") and insert ("make a report").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 297 [Duty to notify London borough councils of publication]:
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 540:
  Leave out Clause 297.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 299 [Reviews of the strategy]:
  Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 541:
  Page 167. line 22, at end insert—
  ("( ) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, the Mayor shall commence a review of the spatial development strategy not more than five years after the date on which it first becomes operative pursuant to the provisions of this Part.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am aware of intervening for the first time at this stage of the Bill and I shall be brief. The Bill acknowledges that there will need to be a review of the spatial development strategy. My amendment seeks to place a time on the commencement of the first review. I have been in correspondence with the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and he stated—and I agree—that it is in general wise to,
  "avoid including firm timetables in the Bill for the production or review of any of the Mayoral strategies. This was for practical reasons and to avoid fettering the Mayor's discretion unduly".
  However, the SPS will make a substantial impact and will break new ground for an authority of this kind. It is highly unlikely, given the amount of detail—not least that added to the Bill at a very late stage—that we have got it right, which merely heightens the importance of taking corrective action. By providing for a review within five years of the SDS becoming operational—which means, when it is first published—the amendment would ensure that the process of evaluation actually happens and is not squeezed out.
  The House recognises that the huge, detailed and prescriptive powers heaped on the mayor by the Bill mean that he will have an enormous range of responsibilities. It will be extremely difficult for him to decide priorities when he comes to review the activities
  66
  for which he is accountable. The amendment is important from the point of view of the City of London, which has the enormously important role of attracting foreign finance houses to contribute to the work of the City. It is important that the House lays down a timetable for the commencement of the review. Then it is up to the mayor to decide on the pace of the review.
  The amendment allows commencement to be delayed, if necessary, until the second mayoral term. But that such a review should happen and happen within a reasonable time is paramount. I hope that even at this late stage the Government will feel able to accept that as a reasonable requirement for something as novel and all-pervasive as the spatial development strategy. I beg to move.
  6.15p.m.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, before speaking to Amendment No. 541ZA in this group, I shall comment on the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding. I am a little anxious about artificial time limits. In the world of development plans—I appreciate that the spatial development strategy is not the same but there are some connections—there is a problem with the length of the process which tends to mean that plans are out of date by the time they come into effect. Concentration is needed in keeping up to date both the strategy and the development plans that boroughs will be publishing. It may be that five years is too long but it may be that it is too short a period. Matters may have settled down, so it is not necessary to commence a review within five years. Responsiveness to what is going on is important. If the mayor tends to sideline a review, I hope that assembly members will make sure that the mayor is not allowed to forget it. As I say, I am a little unhappy with the prospect of an artificial time limit.
  Amendment No. 541ZA to Clause 300, which deals with alterations to the spatial development strategy or its replacement, proposes to remove one of the Secretary of State's powers of direction. Clause 300(2) allows the Secretary of State to direct the mayor to publish not only a new SDS but—this is the provision we seek to delete—to publish,
  "such alterations of the spatial development strategy as the Secretary of State directs."
  We find the words
  "as the Secretary of State directs"
  particularly offensive.
  In Committee, I moved an amendment to delete the whole of Clause 300(2) but now I am limiting the amendment to Clause 300(2)(a). In Committee, the Minister said that reserve powers for the Secretary of State were needed and that they reflect powers in other parts of the country. We have protested throughout the passage of the Bill at the Secretary of State's powers not just to require the mayor or the authority to reconsider certain matters but to take steps that the Secretary of State directs. Will the Minister confirm specifically that the power to direct particular alterations reflects powers that are in effect elsewhere?

  67
  In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, pointed out that the Secretary of State might make such a direction if the mayor and central government were in a state of political confrontation. I agreed with the noble Baroness at that time. On further reflection, I still agree. She made an important point. While I can see that a power to ask the mayor to reconsider is one thing, to, "reconsider and do what I say", is entirely another. It is symptomatic of the centralising nature of the Bill to which we have objected throughout.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, my Amendment No. 541A is grouped with the two amendments previously spoken to. Perhaps I may comment on the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. It seems to me that if the provision in Clause 300(2)(a) represents anything, it represents over-prescription on the face of the Bill. That is something for which we have been condemned from time to time by Ministers opposite. In regard to that subsection the boot is on the other foot.
  Amendment No. 541A refers the Secretary of State's power to make a direction that the mayor should either amend the spatial development strategy, or indeed develop a new strategy back to Clause 295(6). That clause, in reference to delaying publication, states:
  "If at any time it appears to the Secretary of State that it is expedient to do so for the purpose of avoiding … any inconsistency with current national policies or relevant planning guidance, or … any detriment to the interests of an area outside … London".
  The purpose of the amendment is to limit the power of the Secretary of State to order or direct a new spatial development strategy to situations where only those two conditions are fulfilled.
  We believe that that is not unreasonable. We do not think that it would be appropriate for the Secretary of State to have power to direct a new or amended strategy if the Secretary of State was doing so simply because he disagreed with an aspect of the strategy. More than that is needed for this kind of direction to be used. A conflict with national policies or a detriment to the interests of areas outside London would be appropriate reasons for a new or amended strategy to be developed. That is our reason for tabling this amendment. I commend it to the House.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, Amendment No. 541 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, would require the mayor to review the spatial development strategy at least every five years. I understand the thinking behind the proposal and why it may be felt that there is a need to build in a review process. It is important that the mayor should keep the strategy up to date and should regularly review it.
  However, I do not see that that cuts across the general view that we have deliberately not included a fixed timetable for the production and review of these strategies. The work programme for reviewing strategies is a matter in the first instance for the mayor.
  68
  I acknowledge in part the view of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, that there is a particular need for the SDS to be reviewed regularly because of its relevance to the boroughs' unitary development plans and planning applications which organisations may be pursuing and which may indeed come to government. That is why Clause 299 of the Bill already contains a specific duty on the mayor to review the SDS from time to time. But that does not necessarily mean that we should have a rigid timetable.
  The same clause also includes a reserve power for the Secretary of State to direct a review of the SDS if, for example, the mayor were to allow the strategy to become seriously out of date. As I shall say shortly in relation to the other amendments, I do not anticipate that that power will need to be used often, if at all, but it is there. It safeguards some of the anxieties that lie behind the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin.
  I have also undertaken, in Committee and in correspondence with the noble Lord and others from the City, that we shall also draw attention to the importance of regular review in any guidance that we issue to the mayor on the production of the SDS. We shall shortly issue the basis of that for consultation. I hope, therefore, that with those assurances the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
  Both of the other two amendments would seek to circumscribe the Secretary's State's power to direct the mayor to alter or prepare a new spatial development strategy. They therefore move to some extent in the opposite direction from that tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin.
  We are dealing with what is in effect a reserve power. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in regard both to a new plan and alterations to the plan, the legislation very much reflects the existing provisions for the rest of local government, which appear in most recent form in the 1990 planning Act. That reserve power is needed in the context of London as well. As I said, it is a power that we would hope not to use very frequently.
  The strategy has a prime part to play in setting the strategy framework for London, particularly in terms of its relationship with the boroughs and their UDPs. If, for example, the mayor failed to keep the strategy up to date, by means of this power the matter could be rectified in terms of the Secretary of State being able to direct the mayor.
  Amendment No. 541ZA deals with alterations as distinct from directing a new strategy. Again, that is a reflection of the existing provisions in all other planning legislation. Were there not to be a reserve power, there could be significant problems. If the Secretary of State thought that the original SDS was seriously defective but only in one particular factor, or, in the case of a change, if the Secretary of State regarded that change as important but the mayor was ignoring it, it would make sense to have the ability to direct alterations to part of the strategy rather than involving the mayor in preparing a completely new

  69
  strategy. That would save time and money for everyone involved. It would also avoid the uncertainty of having a totally new spatial development plan.
  As I have said, this provision is fully precedented in the existing planning system. It performs an essential reserve power function, even if rarely used. I hope, therefore, that on all those counts the amendment proposed by noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and the other two amendments will not be pursued.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I think I can accept the noble Lord's assurances on the question of the necessity, and perhaps even urgency, of having a review. We shall wait to see what is said in the consultative paper. The Minister has clearly indicated to the House that he accepts the importance of having a review of the crucial strategic development strategy. With that, I am happy to withdraw the amendment and seek leave to do so.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 300 [Alteration or replacement]:
  [Amendments Nos. 541ZA and 541A not moved.]
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 542:
  Page 167, line 41, at end insert—
  ("( ) In this Act, references to the spatial development strategy include, except where the context otherwise requires, a reference to—

  (a) the spatial development strategy as altered; or

  (b) a new spatial development strategy which replaces a previous spatial development strategy.").

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  6.30 p.m.
  Clause 303 [Amendments of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990]:
  Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 543:
  Page 170, line 32, at end insert—
  ("(1D) The Mayor shall not exercise any power under subsection (1B) to direct a local planning authority to refuse an application involving the erection of a building by reason only of the floor space which that building is to provide if—

  (a) the building to be erected is to replace a building which is located on the land to which the application relates;

  (b) the floor space provided by the building to be replaced is not less than the floor space to be provided by the building to be erected; and

  (c) the building to be erected and the building which it is to replace fall within the same use class.

  (1E) In subsection (1D) above—

  "floor space" in relation to any building means the sum of the total floor area provided by every level of that building, measured by reference to its external surfaces, and

  "use class" means class specified in an order made under subsection (2)(f) of section 55 above or in an order having effect as if made under that subsection."").

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 543 I refer also to the Government's Amendment No. 543YA. I return to a matter that I raised in Committee; namely, that the mayor's strategic development strategy should focus on matters that are truly strategic in nature. Without wishing to repeat what I said on that occasion, the hostility that existed between the boroughs and the Greater London Council for many years had much of its origin in the interference by the upper tier authority in the planning role of the boroughs. I am aware that both we and the Government are anxious to avoid that happening again. It was a major flaw in the legislation and the way that it was implemented.
  I make it clear at this stage that it is not my intention to press the matter to a Division, but I hope that in reply to the debate the Minister will be able to give a further indication of the mechanisms— perhaps subordinate legislation or ministerial guidance—by which this strategic focus will be achieved. I said in Committee that if the mayor's strategy did not deliver a quick and streamlined decision-making process for planning applications we would run into the same problems as post-GLC. Therefore, it is important that we get it right; and it is even more important that it is right for the City of London.
  It is worth repeating the figures and the reasons for the concern. Based on 1997–98 data, 22 per cent of planning applications and 48 per cent of floorspace generated by developments in the City must be referred to the mayor as involving matters of strategic importance, and therefore will be dependent on the speed and efficiency of the new authority in processing them. Those are very high figures. In responding to the point that I and my noble friends on the Front Bench then raised in Committee, the Minister pointed out that the regime proposed would, in relative terms, involve reference to the mayor of only a very small number of planning applications throughout London. Without quoting from the debate on 27th July, the Minister estimated that it would involve between 150 and 250 applications over the whole of Greater London.
  I readily accept that that is relatively small in relation to the whole of Greater London. However, the disproportionate effect on the City of London is illustrated by the fact that, supposing one took as a mid-point 200 applications that had to be referred to the mayor, about 10 per cent of the total would arise within the square mile. I can produce the figures if the Minister wants them. That is about 50 times what would be expected if the referral process was uniform over the whole area. Moreover, the figure of 48 per cent of floorspace generated as referable to the mayor illustrates that a very large proportion of the planning developments in the City will be subject to mayoral involvement.
  I do not need to dwell on this for too long, because it is designed to enable the Minister to tell us a little more about the way that the strategy will be operated in practice. But perhaps I may make one or two further points so that they can be taken into account in subordinate legislation or guidance. Since our

  71
  exchanges in Committee I have continued my consultations with the City. I am aware that the City has been in regular contact with the Minister and his officials. I am also aware that recognition by Ministers of the City's special position has been widely appreciated. Therefore, one approaches this issue on the basis that there is common ground across the House on the underlying objective; namely, to maintain the City's ability to respond rapidly and effectively to the accommodation needs of the international financial community.
  My amendment provides that the mayor shall not direct a refusal of planning permission for a development on the grounds of the size of the development alone where the buildings envisaged by the application are no bigger than the ones they replace and are within the same use class. Anyone who is the least bit familiar with development in the City will know that we are talking about the redevelopment of office blocks with replacement on a like-for-like basis—perhaps the single most common form of development within the square mile.
  Strategic considerations which might otherwise arise in relation to substantial developments, such as the ability of local services or the transport infrastructure to cope if there were to be a significant increase in the daytime population, will not be in point because by definition there will be no appreciable change in the circumstances in relation to these issues.
  I accept it is perfectly possible for issues of strategic importance to arise in other contexts; for example, a redevelopment may have unusual architectural features. The clause caters for this because subsection (1D) to be inserted refers to floorspace alone as preventing the mayor from directing a refusal. If there are other features which raise issues of strategic importance then the mayor can still intervene.
  One appreciates that these are matters of some detail, but they are of enormous importance to what one recognises is a hugely significant part of our economic life. The Bill should enable matters to be dealt with through subordinate legislation, and that is my aim here. I hope that the Minister will be able to indicate that the points I have raised will be considered when those orders and regulations, or guidance, are drawn up.
  The Minister for London indicated when the revised proposals for the spatial development strategy were announced in March that an order would be laid, and observed that,
  "the consultation … also highlighted a number of points which need technical clarification … and are to be covered by the drafting of the order".
  I note that only last week in a Written Answer in another place Mr Keith Hill, now Minister for London, said:
  "The Government will be carrying out further consultation on the draft secondary legislation associated with the mayor's planning role shortly".—[Official Report, Commons, 19/10/99; col. WA 521.]
  Therefore, the opportunity exists for these points to be dealt with.
  I hope that this evening the Minister will be able to say that the matters I have raised will be considered as part of the process, whether in secondary legislation or supporting guidance. It cannot be right that nearly half the planning applications in the City by floorspace should be regarded as strategic. If the Minister can provide some reassurance on that point it will go some way to allay the concern that has been expressed. I beg to move.
  Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I support the amendment. My noble friend Lord Jenkin made it clear that he spoke mainly about the City of London. I believe that the problem is bigger than that and involves most of central London and, increasingly, areas like Southwark which will undergo a very dramatic change in a short time. Wherever and whenever this situation exists, the essential point of the amendment is that the building proposed is not to be any larger than the previous one. Everyone feels strongly if suddenly a building doubles in size, which of course has strategic importance. My noble friend makes a very relevant point. Anything that holds up the process for an abnormally long time, which I believe may happen, can be very damaging. I support the amendment.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I speak first to Amendment No. 543YA. It arises from a government commitment during Committee stage to consider an amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith.
  We have always made clear that the mayor will be liable to the costs of holding an appeal inquiry and the costs of other parties where he or she has directed a refusal of planning permission unreasonably. We have taken the power in Clause 303(9) to do so by modifying the relevant provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act.
  However, the noble Lord was concerned that the mayor might be able to evade costs by not actually appearing at an inquiry and considered that the provisions should be on the face of the Bill. We have accepted the noble Lord's arguments and the amendment ensures that. I trust that on this occasion I can look forward to his support on that amendment.
  I turn now to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. The requirement for the mayor to be consulted on a small number of the most significant development proposals, coupled with the fall-back power to direct refusal, is an important element in ensuring that the strategic dimension is taken into account in the consideration of planning applications, which otherwise are entirely a matter for the boroughs.
  This in no sense re-establishes a two-tier system or a second-guessing operation of the kind described by the noble Lord which occurred on occasion during the era of the GLC. We have indicated our intention to ensure that the applications to be notified to the mayor are limited and clearly defined, using clear numerical definitions to achieve that. That will help bring certainty for boroughs, developers and others, and will

  73
  minimise the scope for confusion and delay. We shall review the criteria in the light of experience, but we need clear criteria.
  These arrangements will give the mayor the ability to advise boroughs on the strategic aspects of a planning application. In giving that advice, the scale and nature of any existing development would clearly be something for the mayor to take into account.
  In response to the noble Lord's request for some advice on the secondary legislation and guidance which we shall issue under this clause, we shall be publishing shortly for consultation draft statutory instruments and a draft circular that will govern the mayor's use of the power of direction. These arrangements will ensure that the mayor cannot unduly delay a decision on a planning application, a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner. As we have already indicated—I think in the statement by my colleague Nick Raynsford—the time during which the mayor can use the power of direction will be limited to 14 days once the local authority has resolved to grant planning permission.
  The mayor will have to give clear reasons, based on strategic grounds, for the use of a direction. I know that the noble Lord, and others outside this House, have been particularly concerned about the City of London. I am confident that the numbers will be much smaller than those he quotes. We recognise the importance of the City. That is why the criteria for notifying the mayor of applications within the City will, quite rightly, be higher than elsewhere in the capital. Indeed, we amended quite substantially the thresholds in our original consultation paper in the autumn of last year in the light of similar comments received.
  From the response to the consultation paper from the City, our calculations indicate that in 1997 only 15 applications in the City would have had been referable under the original proposals for size thresholds; and with the amended thresholds just nine of the City's applications would have been caught by the revised proposals we announced in March. There is something odd about the arithmetic here because that is out of a total of over 1,000 planning applications in the City in 1997. By my calculations, that is around 1 per cent, not the 10 per cent referred to by the noble Lord. The provisions for the City seem limited to very major applications. I appreciate the noble Lord's point about no change in use. However, an application of that size may well have the kind of features which need to be taken into account. If it is straightforward, then the procedure requires the mayor to deal with it very quickly; and in most cases, therefore, that would be nodded through.
  As regards London as a whole, we estimate that the mayor will need to be consulted over about 150 to 250 applications, as the noble Lord said. Spread across London, where we are talking about 70,000 applications in total, those are very few indeed. I emphasise that I refer to consultation. It does not mean that the mayor will intervene. The mayor may well intervene in far fewer cases than that implies.
  74
  We need to be clear about the figures and the potential. I accept that there will be some major developments in the City which will have to go through this process. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, may be right that there will be some other large developments. The use in the development in Southwark to which she referred would be substantially greater than the current use. If the figures rose above the threshold, it is right that the mayor should have the opportunity to intervene.
  I hope that we are not conveying to noble Lords that we wish to compromise the ability of the City or other areas—I am very much in favour of the regeneration of the London borough of Southwark—to maintain the City's important contribution and to build and improve on the newly revived parts of the London borough of Southwark and elsewhere. The arrangements that we are putting in place do not inhibit any of that development but ensure that the developments across London as a whole fit together and do not compromise those strategic priorities.
  The detailed arrangements which we intend to put into place through secondary legislation and guidance will contain sufficient safeguards. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will not pursue the matter today. I hope that when he sees the consultation document and the legislation arising from it he will recognise that his anxieties have been met.
  6.45 p.m.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, before the conclusion of the debate, perhaps I may say that I am grateful to the Minister for picking up the point we raised earlier on the costs of planning inquiries. We seem now to have a satisfactory answer for which I thank the Minister.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I shall not bandy figures with the Minister. I have a calculation which will justify the figures I used. He probably has one. But at this hour and with more of the Bill to deal with that would be a waste of time.
  I am grateful to him for having acknowledged that there is concern here. If his figures are right, much of that concern should be met. Given the structure of this part of the Bill, it is of course inevitably right that the mayor should have the power to be consulted on developments which would have truly strategic significance. Part of the case made by the City and others is that merely replacing an old outdated building with a modern building with all the necessary infrastructure for modern communications, and so on, but with no increase in the size and the floor area, does not amount to a strategic development. During Committee stage I said that perhaps the increase should be the trigger which would provoke a reference to the mayor. I understand that the Government have not accepted that point.
  If the guidance can provide that only if the new building is of real strategic significance to the mayor's overall plan for London as a whole would he seek to call it in, I think that much of the anxiety would he removed.

  75
  However, regulations and guidance are the next stage. As I indicated, I do not intend to take the opinion of the House. But I would not wish the Minister to be under any doubt that the matter is regarded as of grave seriousness by those concerned with the development process. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 543YA:
  After Clause 303, insert the following new clause—

  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990: COSTS OF APPEALS
  (" . After section 322A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 there shall be inserted—
  Local inquiries in London: special provision as to costs in certain cases.
  322B.—(1) This section applies where—

  (a) the local planning authority for a London borough refuse an application for planning permission,

  (b) that refusal is in compliance with a direction made by the Mayor of London in accordance with provision made in a development order by virtue of section 74(1B)(a), and

  (c) an appeal against the refusal is made to the Secretary of State under section 78.

  (2) If the Secretary of State causes a local inquiry to be held under section 320(1) to determine the appeal, in its application to the inquiry section 250 of the 1972 Act shall be treated as if—

  (a) for subsection (4) there were substituted the subsection set out at subsection (5) below, and

  (b) for subsection (5) there were substituted the subsection set out at subsection (6) below.

  (3) If the appeal does not give rise to a local inquiry under section 320, in the application of section 322(2) in relation to the appeal the reference to section 250(5) of the 1972 Act shall be treated as if it were a reference to that provision as modified by subsection (2)(b) above.
  (4) If arrangements are made for a local inquiry in relation to the appeal and the inquiry does not take place, in the application of section 322A in relation to the appeal the reference to section 250(5) of the 1972 Act shall be treated as if it were a reference to that provision as modified by subsection (2)(b) above.
  (5) The subsection referred to in subsection (2)(a) above is as follows—
  "Where this subsection applies to an inquiry, the costs incurred by the Secretary of State in relation to the inquiry shall be paid—

  (a) by the Mayor of London, if he is not a party to the inquiry and if the Secretary of State decides that the Mayor acted unreasonably in making the direction in accordance with which the local planning authority refused the planning permission, or

  (b) if the Mayor is a party or if the Secretary of State does not so decide, by such local authority or party to the inquiry as he may direct;

  and the Secretary of State may cause the amount of the costs so incurred to be certified, and any amount so certified and directed to be paid by the Mayor or by any authority or
  76
  person shall be recoverable from the Mayor or from that authority or person by the Secretary of State summarily as a civil debt.".
  (6) The subsection referred to in subsection (2)(b) above is as follows—
  "Where this subsection applies to an inquiry, or to costs incurred for the purposes of an inquiry, the Secretary of State may make orders as to the costs of the parties to the inquiry and as to the parties by whom the costs are to be paid; and—

  (a) the parties by whom the costs are ordered to be paid may include the Mayor of London if he is not a party to the inquiry and if the Secretary of State decides that the Mayor acted unreasonably in making the direction in accordance with which the local planning authority refused the planning permission;

  (b) every such order may be made a rule of the High Court on the application of any party named in the order.".

  (7) In this section "the 1972 Act" means the Local Government Act 1972".").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 306 [Mayor's functions in relation to planning around Greater London]:
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 543ZA:
  Page 171, line 6, at end insert ("or

  (c) any other body which the Mayor considers should be informed,").

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 309 [The Mayor's environmental report]:
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 543A:
  Page 172, line 24, at end insert—

  ("( ) housing conditions, and

  ( ) the effects of the environment on health").

  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment seeks, first, to add "housing conditions" and, secondly, "the effects of the environment on health" to the list of the matters that the mayor would include in a state of the environment report.
  We heard what the Government said in Committee about not being over-prescriptive. We have therefore whittled down the list of matters which we believe should absolutely be included to these two essential items. The aim is linked to that set out for the mayor in his strategies in Clause 33(7) in which it is said that the point of the strategy production is,
  "to promote improvements in the health of persons in Greater London".
  Surely the point of the state of the environment report is that people and agencies may see the impact of the listed items on them and their state of health. All this information must provide the basic aim of improving life. Therefore, the link between the environment and health is critical. In terms of housing conditions, one of the greatest impacts on people's health and well being comes from the state of their micro-environment, that is their homes, their blocks of flats and their streets. The state of that micro-environment is a vital contributor to health.
  One of the professions that has made a contribution to this debate and which very much feels that housing conditions should be included is that to which environmental health officers belong. They have frontline experience of the impact that housing conditions have on the state of people's health. The mayor will need to remain strategic and retain a general picture of improvement or deterioration across the boroughs. He will also need to determine whether housing conditions have improved or deteriorated over, for example, a five-year period.
  We believe that both of these areas crucially affect the day-to-day lives of Londoners. That ought to be of sufficient significance to be listed alongside those matters that the Government are happy to list on the face of the Bill—for example, litter.
  In his reply on the last occasion, the Minister made the point that these were areas for which the mayor was not directly responsible and that it would therefore seem an unnecessary burden on the mayor should he decide that other priorities ought to be pursued. We have carefully considered that point. However, I hope that the Minister by now feels minded to accept the fact that the impact of the environment on health is one of the main points of producing a state of the environment report and that that link is absolutely vital to Londoners who will eventually read the report.
  In the meantime., I hope that the Government will have considered that these two elements are worthy of inclusion. I beg to move.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, my Amendments Nos. 543B, 543C, 543D and 545A are grouped with this amendment.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: No, they are not.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: Are they not? I beg your pardon.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, they were grouped and then they were ungrouped. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, for raising this issue. We are concerned that all the relevant issues should be taken into account by the mayor in producing the report. However, we do not believe that these two issues should be set out as matters which could join a potentially endless list in terms of adding them to the list in Clause 309.
  I remind the House that the Bill already states that the mayor may include information about any other matters in relation to Greater London which he or she considers are appropriate, thus giving the mayor the discretion to include matters of his or her choice which the Bill does not specifically state. It allows the mayor a free hand to include anything which he or she considers might be relevant or of importance to Londoners.
  The problem is that housing conditions and the effect of the environment on health are not within the mayor's direct control. If the mayor considers them to be appropriate, he or she can include sections on these
  78
  issues. However, we see no reason to add any of them to the existing list in the Bill, thereby adding to the mayor's and the GLA's workload by requiring the state of the environment report to include a section on each or any of them.
  In debating these issues, we have to be mindful of the role of the boroughs and the responsibilities they have. In this respect, the housing role is obviously relevant. Clause 309 requires the mayor to consult the Environment Agency, each London borough council, the Common Council, and any other person whom the mayor considers it appropriate to consult before producing the report.
  A requirement to include every single potential item considered by the noble Baroness to be relevant will produce an over-prescriptive definition for the mayor to work to. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendment.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, with the leave of the House, can I ask the Minister why, therefore, "litter" is included in the list in subsection (3)? If anything is local, litter is local. I can well understand that a borough being consulted about litter would be very happy to say, "Mayor, you deal with that." However, it seems a very odd inclusion if matters as substantial as the ones to which my noble friend has referred are excluded.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the point is that the list includes those matters about which information may be available. I understand the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about local authorities which may choose to hand over litter. I would point out, however, that very few of those local borough councils would wish to hand over their housing responsibility to the mayor.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I reassure the Minister that we did not intend the list to be endless. That is why we removed some of the matters we felt were important, leaving the two essentials, as I have pointed out.
  I do not believe that our amendment would result in taking away any of the boroughs' responsibility for housing. They will obviously deal with housing need and with the question of putting in bids to improve their housing. However, good housing is crucial to improving the lives of Londoners. I am therefore surprised that the state of the environment is not to be included on the face of the Bill as something to which the mayor must pay regard.
  I am not sure that I have heard the Minister respond to my point relating to strategy production and the state of the environment report. The Bill refers to the fact that the report is intended to promote improvements in the health of persons in Greater London. However, I shall dwell on her answer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  7p.m.
  Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 543B:
  Page 172, line 25, after ("other") insert ("relevant").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I apologise to the House for putting myself in an offside position. However, I believe that the Government's Chief Whip would be pleased and thrilled to think that I was anxious to get on with the business.
  Of the amendments in this group, two are important and two are less so. Amendment No. 543B deals with a minor matter. The clause empowers the mayor to produce a state of the environment report. The amendment proposes that when the mayor is introducing other matters in relation to Greater London which he considers appropriate they should be "relevant". If one is an optimist, one believes that no mayor would dream of putting anything irrelevant in any report. But, my Lords, you never know. Elections are strange things; we do not know who the mayor will be or what will happen.
  Amendment No. 543C introduces the concept of an environment strategy group which should be involved before the mayor consults the Environment Agency, London borough councils and so forth. That is an important paving amendment about which I shall have more to say later.
  Amendment No. 543D lists the main atmospheric pollutants about which we believe information should be contained in any environment report published by the mayor. I dare say that the Minister will say that that is being overprescriptive—it would be remarkable if he did not. But we believe that it is worth wasting—I am sorry, worth inserting—those. I apologise to the House; there is an awful lot of waste in environmental matters.
  I return to the issue of an environment strategy group dealt with in Amendment No. 545A. The mayor is required to produce a series of reports in the environmental field. He has to produce a document to be known as the London biodiversity action plan; he has to produce the municipal waste management strategy; he has to produce a strategy for air quality; and he has to produce a strategy for noise. Those are significant issues.
  It may be that the mayor will be able to put together a professional team of advisers who are so competent and sufficiently read in all those fields that he will need no further advice. However, he will be extremely fortunate if he is able to do so. In Amendment No. 545A, we propose a new schedule which establishes an environment strategy group for London. Its membership is not specified, but we suggest that it should consist of people with knowledge and experience relevant to the environment and the issues in respect of which the mayor must produce reports. The commercial world and, more importantly, the academic world contain people with knowledge of what is happening in the more strategic sense. We believe that they could make a real contribution to the work of the mayor in producing all the reports that I have mentioned.
  As an aside, I find it fascinating that a little further in the Bill we come to consider a cultural strategy group. Apparently, there is no problem about having such a group, although perhaps there is more executive history in that area. I believe that the environment is a far more significant issue as regards London, Londoners and the future of London. I hope that those people involved in the cultural debate will not take umbrage at what I am saying, but I believe that cultural matters can be extremely controversial if they are heavily and articulately advanced. But the environment in London is critical to London's strategic future. I have no doubt that the mayor, if he is obliged to work with the Bill as it stands, will do his best, but the purpose of the amendment is to make it possible for him to do better. That is a worthwhile ambition and I beg to move.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, perhaps I may deal first with Amendment No. 543B. I am not sure that I understand the rationale for it. The mayor will decide what additional matters are relevant or appropriate. I do not believe that the amendment adds a great deal to the Bill. However, the other amendments are more substantial.
  Amendment No. 543D requires that the mayor includes information on specific pollutants in the air quality section of his report. We debated a similar amendment in Committee. I understand the reasons behind the amendment and I agree that the pollutants listed are important. However, the amendment is unnecessary and overdetailed—I am trying to avoid using the word "prescriptive". In any case, the mayor will have to pay attention to the majority of pollutants listed in the amendment, with the exception of PM2.5. These pollutants are listed specifically in the national air quality strategy which the mayor, under Clause 317, will be required to implement in London.
  There is, of course, nothing to prevent the mayor from adding PM2.5 or any other pollutant to the strategy he or she produces. The Bill has the necessary flexibility for that but we do not need to repeat the list. We need a little flexibility.
  Amendments Nos. 543C and 545A deal with the environmental strategy group. We debated the provision of such a group in Committee. At that time, the Opposition had slightly grander plans for the group. The amendments now on the Marshalled List indicate that they envisage only a limited role for such a group; that of advising the mayor on the issues to be covered in the state of the environment report.
  It is important that the mayor mobilises all the expertise he can get. He must decide how all of those strategies which he is required to deliver can be delivered. But we want to leave a little bit of flexibility on how he delivers his obligations under this measure. He might decide to work in a number of different ways. For example, he might decide to bring together some kind of strategy group as prescribed here or to use a round table model using senior officers from the GLA, the functional bodies, the London boroughs and so forth and other environmental experts. Alternatively, he might do so by appointing a series of different

  81
  environmental experts to work throughout the authority on the range of responsibilities in the different strategies. It may be to gather groups of advisers on each of those strategies. More probably, it will be a combination of those in order to produce a degree of consensus behind each of the strategies.
  There is a different position as compared with the cultural strategy group which we are setting up in the next section because in this section the mayor has the prime responsibility in relation to drawing up these strategies. It is the mayor's responsibility to deliver.
  In the cultural area, we are primarily concerned with setting up partnerships where others in the cultural scene around London will deliver. I make no implication about the importance of the environment and culture. The noble Lord was getting himself into deep water over that. But it is a different relationship. The relationship in the environmental field is clearly a mayoral responsibility. In the cultural field it is a cooperative and collective one—that is the difference. The mayor may well set up a strategy group of some sort, but he cannot be required to do so on the face of the Bill. I beg the noble Lord not to press the amendments.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. As always, he is helpful and informative, even when he does not completely agree with me. I hear what he has to say, but he has to produce a "state of the environment" report, which will need to pull together all the other specialist aspects which I mentioned earlier and on which the Minister touched. Bringing together a lot of specialists can be a successful way of producing a unified report, but it can also be a successful way of producing an almost interminable disagreement on points of detail.
  It was partly with that in mind as well as the significant importance of this particular issue for the whole strategic future of London that we tabled the important Amendment No. 545A. I have heard the Minister's comments and I shall study them with care. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 543C and 543D not moved.]
  [Amendment No. 544 not moved.]
  Clause 311 [The Mayor's municipal waste management strategy]:
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 544TA:
  Page 173, line 34, after second ("the") insert ("minimisation,").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 544TA seeks to include minimisation in the waste strategy which the mayor must produce. When we discussed the issue in Committee, the Minister's response was that he would not accept our amendment, which sought to insert the word "minimisation", because minimisation was such an integral part of waste management, that to separate it
  82
  out, as our amendment proposed, would send the message that waste minimisation and waste management were two different matters.
  However, looking at the other terms which the Government have chosen to include on the face of the Bill: "recovery", "treatment" and "disposal", I should have thought those terms to be equally absolutely part of waste management. I cannot quite understand why minimisation is taken as implicitly part of waste management and why, for example, recovery is not to be taken as implicit, since it is on the face of the Bill. The Minister was kind enough to say at the beginning of his reply that he totally agreed with my remarks on the importance of waste minimisation—indeed, I should not expect him to disagree.
  However, since that time I have given some more thought to the matter and made inquiries in the local authority area and it seems that waste minimisation is one of the most difficult areas to tackle. Although local authorities are now responsible and indeed, empowered, to put into place waste minimisation strategies, that is happening remarkably slowly, probably because it is such a difficult area to tackle. But if, as the Minister accepted, it is such an important area to tackle, it must be on the face of the Bill. We do not want to repeat the experience of it taking a long time to tackle because it is a difficult area. I should like to give one example where minimisation might mean something very different from waste management.
  In Committee, we took the example of take-away boxes being used, in fact, by staff in your Lordships' House, but also throughout London. Little triangular plastic take-away boxes are used for sandwiches and rectangular ones for hamburgers and so on. At huge events, such as those which take place in the Royal Parks, an enormous quantity of take-away containers are used. In a minimisation strategy, the mayor might decide to encourage, cajole and require people supplying take-away food to do so in packaging that minimised waste in two ways.
  There is now at least one company of which I am aware in Somerset which produces take-away food boxes from the waste produced in making chips. Potato starch is used to make the boxes, which are used for take-away food and can then be composted. That seems to me to be a perfect example of minimising waste twice. That is the sort of use of minimisation at which the mayor might choose to look—my noble friend is laughing because I often refer to potatoes in Somerset, and I did so when he visited our area committee. However, that is a small example of where minimisation is important. If it is not included on the face of the Bill, the mayor will necessarily continue to concentrate on recovery and disposal.
  I stop with the example of take-aways as an area where a huge impact could be made. The outlet does not in fact have to pay for any disposal because people take away the packaging from the premises. It usually ends up in dustbins or on the roadside, creating extra problems. In the great generality of things, and as we look to the next 10 and 20 years of what the mayor should be doing for London, minimising waste should

  83
  be written onto the face of the Bill, particularly to send the message that that is the future for waste. I beg to move.
  7.15p.m.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am happy to rise to speak to my Amendment No. 544UA, which is grouped with Amendment No. 544TA.
  It is not an interest which needs to be declared, but I speak as an Essex nationalist, and indeed, a Home Counties nationalist and a representative, in some sense, of counties far beyond the immediate Home Counties. Everyone who lives outside London will have an instant empathy with this particular amendment. Thirty-seven per cent of London's waste has been disposed of in Essex for a very long time. It goes to many other places. We should be grateful for progress which prevents London's waste from being dumped into the sea any more, but it is still dumped outside London.
  It is a real problem in two senses for those counties obliged to receive London's waste. First, the counties have all the local environmental interference that results from having large waste disposal facilities, when they have not had the privilege of producing the waste themselves. More importantly, if London's waste is filling up space in other areas, it means that they will in fact run out of their own space more quickly. They then have a problem not only in disposing of London's waste but also in disposing of their own. That is a real difficulty. Technologies are coming into being, of which the south-east London combined heat and power installation is perhaps the most modern and prominent, which permit the disposal of waste within an urban area and actually benefit the local community at the same time. The heat from the disposal process can be used to heat houses, and it also generates electricity which goes into the National Grid.
  Those technologies are sophisticated and expensive. It is interesting that that particular installation causes apparently almost no concern to people in the locality. It certainly causes no interference; there are no smells, it is exceedingly well controlled and it is a very successful installation.
  It is true to say that it would be perfectly possible for more of those installations to be established, provided of course that one disregards the NIMBY factor. One of the facets of modern society is that it longs to enjoy, and does enjoy, the amenities of modern life. It does not like to be involved in any possible ill consequences of that enjoyment. One of the less fortunate consequences of the way we live today is that we produce a lot of waste. I agree with the wish of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, to see waste production minimised. That is part of the solution to the problem.
  London should be able to dispose of far more of its waste within its own boundaries than it does at present. This amendment would make the planning of that a part of the waste disposal process and of the
  84

  mayor's municipal waste management strategy. I believe that that is a worthwhile ambition which should be included in the Bill.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not able to accept this amendment, although I commend the noble Lord's commitment to those various technologies. I am sure they will play a major part in the mayor's waste strategy, as indeed will the more middle-brow technologies referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, in terms of the recycling processes in Somerset.
  There is a slight conceptual problem here. Clearly, waste minimisation has a role in all of the points of the cycle of waste strategy: in waste production, disposal, recycling, transport, and so forth. The mayor's state of the environment report will already contain information about minimisation. However, the strategy is specifically addressed to those matters which are within the specific control of waste collection and waste disposal authorities. If waste minimisation is interpreted literally, those authorities do not have direct control over the production of waste.
  Clearly, minimisation is a major part of waste management strategy and lies within the responsibilities of those authorities which deal with the various aspects of waste. As regards encouraging those whose waste they collect to engage in waste minimisation projects, that is a different angle over which the authorities have no, or little, direct control. However, it is also part of the strategy. Were we to write in that provision as a part of the strategy which is separate from the various areas which are specified in the legislation, that would cut across those points in the cycle.
  The guidance to which we refer in this clause would cover waste minimisation strategies in all those contexts and would give guidance as to how authorities could go about writing and implementing those strategies. The mayor would certainly be expected to include strategies for waste minimisation, but not as a separate item from the various stages of waste management. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness can see the conceptual difference and will not pursue these amendments.
  I turn to Amendment No. 544UA. As a former London nationalist, I believe that Essex received a fair amount of rate income from the waste disposal plants and it was a service for which we paid. Nevertheless, I understand what the noble Lord is seeking and there is some logic to his long-term position. However, it is rather unrealistic in the short to medium-term to expect the London waste strategy to be able to achieve total self-reliance in terms of disposal of municipal waste within London. It may be a long-term and ultimate aim, but it is not one which would be achievable in the likely periods of the strategies.
  In addition, those authorities, such as Essex, in whose areas it is planned to dispose of London's waste are involved clearly and centrally in the process of consultation. Therefore, they too may have a say in the direction in which we are moving. However, I do not

  85
  believe that it would be sensible to place on the face of the Bill what generally would be seen by many people as an unrealistic objective in the foreseeable timetable. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will not pursue the matter.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Dourer: My Lords, the Minister is right: I have great difficulty in understanding the conceptual difference between waste minimisation being part of a waste strategy and not being a part of it. If there were such a difference, it is unlikely that the Government would have empowered local authorities, through various measures, to be responsible for waste minimisation. I have difficulty in understanding how that legislation fits in with what the Minister now tells us about the mayor's responsibilities.
  I shall read again with care what the Minister said in this regard. However, I still fail to understand why the Government refuse to put minimisation on the face of the Bill but are willing to include all other aspects of the waste cycle. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 544UA:
  Page 173. line 35, after ("waste") insert (''which shall include proposals for the disposal of London's waste within London").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I heard what the Minister had to say. I shall consider it carefully. I felt very much like a 22 year-old whose father told him that he had unreasonable ambition. I am sorry that the Minister feels like that about this subject. It seems to me that strategic ambition is worth while.
  [Amendment No. 544UA not moved.]
  Clause 314 [Directions by the Mayor]:
  The Deputy Speaker (Viscount St Davids): My Lords, before calling Amendment No. 544UAA, I should point out to your Lordships that if it is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 544VA.
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 544UAA:
  Page 175, line 6, leave out from ("direction") to end of line 8.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, tabled a similar amendment in Committee. We agreed to go away and consider whether the second power of direction in this context was needed. We decided on reflection that it was not. Therefore, that is one power of direction for the Secretary of State that we should like to remove from the Bill. I beg to move.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, one down and one zillion to go! I am grateful to the Minister for responding to the point. Of course, I am very happy to have my amendment pre-empted.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 544VA not moved.]
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 544VAA:
  Page 175, line 8, at end insert—
  ("( ) The Mayor may not give to an authority a direction under subsection (1) above requiring the authority—

  (a) to terminate a waste contract before the expiry of the term of the contract; or

  (b) to do anything which would result in a breach of any term of a waste contract.

  ( ) The Mayor may not give to an authority a direction under subsection (1) above requiring the authority to exercise a function in relation to the awarding of a waste contract if—

  (a) the authority is required to comply with the public procurement regulations in awarding that contract, and

  (b) in compliance with those regulations the authority has sent the second information notice relating to the awarding of that contract to the Official Journal of the European Communities.").

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 544VAA, I wish to speak also to the other amendments included in this group.
  This group of amendments appears to be fairly complicated but in fact deals with one issue. Your Lordships may recall that in Committee I indicated that we would bring forward amendments to clarify the scope of the mayor's power of direction and how that could be made to sit with the contractual nature of local authority waste management. This group of amendments makes it clear that the mayor's power of direction operates at the point at which a new contract is entered into between the local authority and the contracting parties, which will normally be required to go to tender. It does not introduce an overriding power for the mayor to introduce a break clause into contracts and override existing and on-going contracts.
  Therefore, the intention is clear. It retains for the mayor a power to intervene when the contract is changed but not to engage in the legal complexity of overriding a contract because it does not comply with the overall strategy. I believe that point applies to all the amendments in this group. I hope noble Lords are able to accept them.
  7.30p.m.
  Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I am concerned about these amendments. It seems that the group of amendments to which the Minister spoke includes these two and perhaps the two which follow, which are to insert new clauses. I have waited for some time to speak. I have been invited to an engagement downstairs, so I do not wish to return too soon after dinner. In that case, perhaps I may be allowed to comment briefly on those amendments.
  The Minister stated that this power would operate at the point of contracts being introduced. I am worried by the timing. There is nothing to make clear that negotiations might not have reached a crucial point when the contract was on the point of being let. At that stage the mayor would have the right to intervene. That is worrying.
  The public cost involved in waste disposal contracts is enormous. I want to be satisfied that whatever powers the mayor can exercise, he would in some way

  87
  be obliged to have regard to the cost, the practicality and the environmental benefit. I do not believe that such points are adequately covered by this series of amendments. I would appreciate the Minister's comments.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, intervention prior to the contract being awarded would minimise any costs to the local authority concerned. The mayor's ability to intervene would be on the basis that a proposed contract, or proposed terms of contract, would be contrary to the overall strategy for waste management within London as a whole. Without being controversial, if one were to see an authority moving disposal of waste from one form of transport to another, clearly contravening the direction of the strategy, the mayor would need the power to intervene. If, however, the previous contract had been more or less in line with the strategy and the subsequent contract was likely to be the same, it is unlikely that the mayor would wish to redirect the authority.
  There are, however, safeguards. All the contracts are subject to public procurement provisions so that intervention cannot take place after the second notice has been published. In any event, before issuing such a direction the mayor would need to consult the authority concerned. There are also safeguards relating to the disclosure of information in what would be commercial contracts or bids for commercial contracts.
  We are therefore dealing with a situation where the mayor can see a local authority going outside the general direction which, by and large, London and the authority have been party to in drawing up the overall strategy. These are important powers for the delivery of the strategy. However, I do not believe that they are so wide ranging as to cause the kind of anxieties among local authorities regarding cost, disclosure and commercial partnerships about which the noble Baroness is concerned.
  As there were, slightly surprisingly, no other interventions, I commend Amendment No. 544VAA.
  Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I feel that he has not adequately answered the point about cost. Does he remember a time when people stopped sending barges down the river? There was great discussion in many London boroughs. We all had a sentimental attachment to barges going down the river. However, it was very expensive to continue such practice. Is the Minister aware of the cost implication?
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, there are examples where there would be a cost implication but that should be covered through compliance with the strategy, in the first place, of the contract specification. It is in just such a situation that an additional cost may have to be incurred by an authority in order to comply with the overall strategy. However, that should be known at an earlier stage when the contract specification is established. In other words, if the mayor's strategy
  88
  required the riverside boroughs, where possible, to move their waste by water—I am not saying that it would—that could be a provision, as far as possible, for the strategy. That would be known before the contracts were made. Yes, there are circumstances where that would be a greater cost to the authority than the alternative. However, it would be within the strategy and known well before the contract came up.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments 544VAB to 544VAD:
  After Clause 314, insert the following new clause—

  INFORMATION ABOUT EXISTING WASTE CONTRACTS
  (" .—(1) Where at the date on which this section comes into force a waste authority is a party to a waste contract, the authority shall, before the end of the period of 21 days beginning with the date on which this section comes into force, notify the Mayor of the date on which the term of the contract is due to expire.
  (2) A waste authority which is a party to a waste contract shall—

  (a) at least two years before the date on which the term of the contract is due to expire, but

  (b) no earlier than three years before that date,

  notify the Mayor of that date.
  (3) Subsection (1) above is without prejudice to subsection (2) above.
  (4) If at any time before the date on which the term of a waste contract is due to expire a waste authority which is a party to the contract—

  (a) proposes to terminate or amend the contract, or

  (b) receives notification from another party to the contract that the contract is or is proposed to be terminated or amended,

  the authority shall as soon as reasonably practicable notify the Mayor.
  (5) Where the Mayor has been notified by a waste authority under subsection (1), (2) or (4) above he may direct the authority to provide him with such information as he may require for the purposes of deciding whether—

  (a) the arrangements which the authority is making to enter into a new contract,

  (b) the terms upon which the authority is proposing to enter into a new contract, or

  (c) the amendments or proposed amendments to the contract,

  would be detrimental to the implementation of the municipal waste management strategy.
  (6) Where the Mayor gives an authority a direction under subsection (5) above, the authority to whom the direction is given shall comply with the direction.").
  After Clause 314, insert the following new clause—

  INFORMATION ABOUT NEW WASTE CONTRACTS
  (" .—(1) If in the awarding of a waste contract a waste authority is required to comply with the public procurement regulations, the authority shall not send the first information notice relating to the awarding of the contract to the Official Journal of the European Communities unless—

  (a) the authority has notified the Mayor that it proposes to send such a notice, and

  (b) a period of at least 56 days beginning with the day on which the Mayor is so notified has elapsed.

  (2) If in the awarding of a waste contract a waste authority is not required to comply with the public procurement regulations, the authority shall not enter into the contract unless—

  (a) the authority has notified the Mayor that it proposes to enter into such a contract, and

  (b) a period of at least 56 days beginning with the day on which the Mayor is so notified has elapsed.

  (3) Where the Mayor has been notified under subsection (1) or (2) above he may direct the waste authority to provide him with such information about the contract as he may require for the purposes of deciding whether the contract would be detrimental to the implementation of the municipal waste management strategy.
  (4) Where the Mayor gives an authority a direction under subsection (3) above, the authority to whom the direction is given shall comply with the direction.").
  After Clause 314, Insert the following new clause—

  CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION ABOUT WASTE CONTRACTS
  (" .—(1) Nothing in section (Information about existing waste contracts) or (Information about new waste contracts) shall require a waste authority to provide any information if—

  (a) the information has been provided to the waste authority by another person,

  (b) that person has imposed requirements as to the maintenance by the waste authority of confidentiality in respect of the information,

  (c) the waste authority is, by virtue of the public procurement regulations. under a duty to comply with those requirements, and

  (d) the provision of the information would be in breach of that duty.

  (2) If at the time when information is provided by a waste authority to the Mayor under section (Information about existing waste contracts) or (Information about new waste contracts) above the waste authority notifies the Mayor that, in the opinion of the authority, the information is confidential information or exempt information, the information shall not be disclosed—

  (a) by the Mayor, except to a person appointed under section 56(1), or (2) above, or

  (b) by such a person, except to another such person.

  (3) For the purposes of subsection (2) above—

  "confidential information" has the meaning given by section 100A(3) of the Local Government Act 1972, but taking the reference to the council in paragraph (a) of that provision as a reference to the waste authority;

  "exempt information" shall be construed in accordance with section 1001 of that Act, but taking references to a principal council in paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 12A to that Act (meaning of "the authority") as references to a waste authority.").

  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 315 [Interpretation of sections 311 to 314]:
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 544VAE to 544VAJ:
  Page 175, leave out line 17 and insert—
  ("(1) This section applies for the purposes of sections 311 to (Confidential information about waste contracts) above.
  (2) The following expressions have the meanings given below—").
  Page 175, line 26, at end insert—
  (""the public procurement regulations" means any of the following—
  S.I 1991/2680

  (a) the Public Works Contracts Regulations 1991,

  (b) the Public Services Contracts Regulations 1993,

  (c) the Public Supply Contracts Regulations 1995, and

  (d) the Utilities Contracts Regulations 1996,").

  Page 175, line 31, at end insert—
  (""waste authority" means—

  (a) a waste collection authority in Greater London; or

  (b) a waste disposal authority in Greater London,").

  Page 175, line 33, after ("Act") insert—

  (""waste contract" means a contract which includes or is to include provision relating to municipal waste and is made or to be made by a waste authority in the performance of its functions under Part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (waste on land).").

  Page 175, line 35, at end insert—
  ("(3) "First information notice", in relation to the awarding of a waste contract by a waste authority, means—

  (a) in a case where the authority is required in the awarding of that contract to comply with—

  S.I 1991/2680

  (i) the Public Works Contracts Regulations 1991.

  (ii) the Public Services Contracts Regulations 1993, or

  (iii) the Public Supply Contracts Regulations 1995,

  a notice in respect of that contract sent to the Official Journal of the European Communities in compliance with regulation 9 of the relevant Regulations; or

  (b) in a case where the authority is required in the awarding of that contract to comply with the Utilities Contracts Regulations 1996, a notice in respect of that contract sent to the Official Journal of the European Communities in compliance with regulation 14.

  (4) "Second information notice", in relation to the awarding of a waste contract by a waste authority, means—

  (a) in a case where the authority is required in the awarding of that contract to comply with—

  S.I 1991/2680

  (i) the Public Works Contracts Regulations 1991.

  (ii) the Public Services Contracts Regulations 1993, or

  (iii) the Public Supply Contracts Regulations1995.

  a notice in respect of that contract sent to the Official Journal of the European Communities in compliance with regulation 11, 12 or 13 of the relevant Regulations; or

  (b) in a case where the authority is required in the awarding of that contract to comply with the Utilities Contracts Regulations 1996, a notice in respect of that contract sent to the Official Journal of the European Communities which in accordance with regulation 15(2)(b) satisfies the requirement of regulation 15(1) to make a call for competition.

  (5) Until the date on which the municipal waste management strategy is first published under section 311(1) above, sections 314(1), (Information about existing waste contracts)(5) and

  91
  (Information about new waste contracts)(3) above have effect as if the references to the municipal waste management strategy were references to the policies contained in the strategy prepared by the Secretary of State in accordance with section 44A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (national waste strategy).").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be adjourned. In moving this Motion I suggest that the Report stage begin again not before 8.35 p.m.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Mozambique
7.36p.m.
Lord Redesdale Lord Redesdale rose to ask her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to help reconstruction and development in Mozambique.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I always enjoy these debates. I feel that my standing up to speak has a certain effect on the House! I thank the many noble Lords who put their name to this Unstarred Question at such short notice.
This debate is timely. Although that is said about many Unstarred Questions, I believe it to be so because the second presidential and parliamentary elections in Mozambique will take place in December. This also gives me an opportunity to welcome the fact that Her Majesty the Queen is visiting Mozambique next month after her visit to CHOGM in South Africa, Mozambique being the newest member of the Commonwealth.
The importance of Mozambique becoming such a member is not because north-south relations would be improved but because the Commonwealth is far more important for south-south co-operation. Also, it has a particular role in Southern Africa in uniting many of the countries.
Mozambique is in a period of transition at present. The war which ended in 1990 ravaged the whole country. I first visited Mozambique in 1990 hitching a ride on the truck convoy that went between Zimbabwe and Malawi, through the Tete corridor. I have to admit that to see a country so devastated was a sight which gave me nightmares. At the side of the road I saw people who were living in grass houses. Such grass houses were not traditionally made and properly constructed but built very quickly so that if they had to be left almost immediately, there would be nothing for which to return.
Almost 10 years on, the country is now a different place. I have not been to Mozambique since 1994. Indeed, the High Commissioner told me that if I went back, I would not recognise it. I very much hope that that is the case. It is now a democratic country attracting foreign investment at a rate which would be fairly unusual in many of the African countries.
I started my speech by referring to the elections because the future of the country rests very much upon their outcome. By that I do not mean which party wins but that elections in themselves are incredibly important. The process of election is not only to elect a government but to elect an opposition. It is important to remember that democracy rests on a credible opposition.
A credible opposition is one that can take the government to task. It is not one that has to defeat the government at every opportunity, but one that can make sure that the government are accountable and are being watched at every opportunity. In that respect, I hope that the international community will support Renamo in the years ahead. It acted as a focus for the opposition groups; in fact, many of the smaller parties joined with Renamo in fighting this election against Frelimo. I say that not in a party political way, but because it is good for Mozambique. Many countries suffer when the "winner-take-all" attitude prevails.
An area in which Britain can help Mozambique, perhaps through the Westminster Foundation and maybe through other organisations, is in helping the parties to build up their party structures and produce credible policies that can be distributed to their electorate. One of the great issues that faces emerging democracies is economic pressure. Mozambique is a country with staggering economic difficulties. I want first to talk about health and education.
The international community has an important role to play in adjusting the economic ground rules under which Mozambique will go forward. The health and education systems were badly damaged, in many cases destroyed, by the war. Hospitals were burnt down. Schools were shattered. I remember monitoring the elections in Zambezia and we could not use some of the buildings because they were so badly damaged. Some of the poll stations meant to be in the schools had to be in the roads outside.
Another factor is not just the physical damage, but the damage to the people who make the infrastructures work. The trained staff left. One of the interesting factors in relation to economic growth in Mozambique is that there is a massive shortage of staff because those people who were trained are moving into the private sector where wages are far higher.
One reason why the international community has so much responsibility is because Mozambique is crippled by international debt. It is impossible to conceive that health and education will be able to develop while international debt stands at such a level. The international community is aware that Mozambique is one of the most unsustainably indebted countries in the world. That is why there was an agreement to reduce that debt by 1.4 billion dollars. That must be regarded as helpful. However there is a problem. The figures show that each year Mozambique is expected to service over 100 million dollars of debt—more than it spends on education and health put together.
When reading many of the articles on Mozambique, I picked out one which put forward its hopeless situation very well. Gary Younge from the Guardian said,
"The debt write-off will make somewhere between no difference at all and a negligible improvement, since the debt being relieved was money that the Mozambican government simply could not pay anyway. Between 1995 and 1998 the country paid roughly $113m a year in debt services. After HIPC that figure will drop to around $100 million—almost as much as the Mozambican government spends at health and education combined".
One of the problems I also see with that figure of 100 million dollars is that Mozambique is a developing economy and has a fairly rapid growth rate; however, the country's economic import and export ratio means that it is likely to be dependent on donor aid for some period to come. I realise that the Government have difficulty in writing off each country's total debt burden. But I ask the Minister to remind his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he said he would look at each country on a case-by-case basis. I believe that Mozambique falls into a scenario where a 100 per cent write-off is the only step forward.
Even without debt an interesting problem arises in one area that must be looked at in all debt relief; that is, that more care must be taken to look closely at the situation and not blindly follow principles of economic adjustment. I am thinking particularly of the case of the cashew nut industry in which the World Bank proposed liberalisation on taxation. That led to the collapse of the cashew nut industry. The World Bank has seen the error of its ways, but 8,000 people in one of the few industries lost their jobs.
The situation on the ground in Mozambique gives cause for hope. There is investment. Many countries are looking at large products, even though they are in the south rather than the north. The Commonwealth Development Corporation, in its new form, may play a significant role in that work. Mozambique is an agricultural economy with the potential, through the richness of its soil and its climate, to make significant gains in production. However, agricultural produce is very much subject to the vagaries of the market.
I wish to end on two specific points. The first concerns the landmines which still kill 1,000 people a year. I hope that the Government will not forget that the signing of the Ottawa Treaty did not remove any mines and that they will carry on the excellent work funded by people such as the Halo Trust. Also, I want particularly to thank the Government for pumping money into the AIDS vaccination project—an issue close to my heart and something which I called for on a number of occasions. The Secretary of State recently said that £14 million will be going into that project.
In fear of going over my time, I wish to say that DfID produced a wonderful report which looked at many of the import ant issues such as gender. There is a great deal of hope for Mozambique. but if DfID's target for 2015 is to be met, serious thought must be given to writing off its debt in total.
7.47p.m.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for introducing this debate.
Mozambique is one of the poorest countries in the world, yet it has made considerable strides in the past four years following democratic elections in 1994. It has a committed government, developing coordinated strategies; it has low inflation and many dynamic and engaged partners, including the UK But it faces enormous challenges in continuing to achieve economic growth which benefits the poor. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is to be congratulated on the speed with which she decided to increase UK support through debt relief and a doubling of the aid programme following her visit last year.
Much has already been said about economic development. I want to say something about targeting rural areas, and particularly to concentrate my brief remarks on one specific aspect of rural development in Mozambique; namely, the role of women. If there is time, I should like also to say a few words about good governance.
Over 70 per cent of the rural population live in poverty. In the rural community women rarely own land, may have less education and their access to productive resources, as well as to decision-making, tends to occur through the mediation of men. Women typically have access to a narrower range of labour markets than men, while studies show women work up to three hours a day more than men. The lack of basic services in rural areas, reliable water supplies, health centres, woodlots and transport, all add considerably to women's workload.
The Government of Mozambique have clearly said that they are committed to the removal of gender discrimination and have signed up to international conventions. But although there is a supportive legislative framework, women's rights are not realised because of traditional beliefs and underdeveloped social and physical infrastructure. For example, girls are particularly disadvantaged in terms of access to education, especially in the northern and central areas where they account for only 39 per cent of students at primary level.
The Department for International Development is, very appropriately in my view, aiming to mainstream a focus on gender across the different sector activities, rather than initiating small-scale projects which target women directly. But the UK is also providing support in other ways. I want to highlight the work of two organisations which are playing a part in the reconstruction process. I must declare an interest in both.
Voluntary Service Overseas, of which I am chair, has 23 volunteers in Mozambique and these will double in the next three years. They focus on teacher training and improving rural livelihoods, particularly for children and women. It is worth noting that English language is a priority for the Government of Mozambique, who see the language as having a role to

95
play in poverty alleviation measures through education and training, through increased employment opportunities and through commerce and trade, as well as increased links with their immediate English-speaking neighbours in the SADC region.
But also, as part of an imaginative development of VSO's work, we have two Portuguese volunteers. These, of course, have to be handled sensitively, as they are seen as "returnees" by some who resent the attempts by Portuguese "returnees" to claim nationalised real estate and industries. However, we hope to extend these possibilities by considering youth exchanges between Mozambican and Portuguese Muslims. Mozambique has many donors. It is important that partnership and collaboration maximise the impact of the resources which are being committed to this devastated country.
The noble Lord emphasised the importance of democracy. I was delighted that he referred to the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, of which I was previously a director. It is a UK organisation with a proven track record in delivering high-quality projects in support of democracy building. It has supported six projects in Mozambique specifically focused on human rights training and on voter education. Clearly, that will be enormously important in the forthcoming election. There is much scope for further projects. There is no doubt that democracy is still fragile and civil society relatively weak. There is a great deal that the Westminster Foundation can do, in conjunction not only with our political parties but also with other democracy building organisations working in Mozambique.
I would urge my noble friend the Minister to intensify the work being done in rural communities, particularly where women's chances of employment can be enhanced. At the same time, I urge her to encourage further the development in English language training and in democratic consolidation through the excellent work done on the ground by non-governmental organisations like VSO and the Westminster Foundation for Democracy.
All those who work in Mozambique speak of the extremely positive feel about it, despite its real and widespread poverty. Its determination to achieve economic growth and its moves towards good governance are good reasons to increase support. But, as the noble Lord said, no one should underestimate the task.
7.53 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I, too, am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for introducing the debate at this excellent time. I do not have his experience because, regrettably, I have never been to Mozambique. Nevertheless, I have a great concern for the eastern seaboard of Africa.
Can the Minister tell us how Mozambique is gaining at present from its new membership of the Commonwealth? I can see enormous value in southern
96
Africa working together. It must be of great advantage to have Mozambique, with its geographical location, working in that organisation. I know that South African interests are spreading northwards a great deal, and I hope that Mozambique is gaining economically, linguistically and in many other ways from its new membership of the Commonwealth.
As has been said, Mozambique has a very good economic growth rate—perhaps up to 10 per cent at times—and aluminium, iron and steelworks are progressing in the country. The government's priority is poverty reduction and, with 70 per cent of the population living in absolute poverty, no one can deny the importance of that aim. But as well as the improvement and investment in those major industrial works, the improving agricultural productivity in rural areas is also extremely important. I believe that about 80 per cent of the population live in rural areas, though I am sure that that will decrease as the years go by.
I was sad to hear about the problems with the cashew nut industry. I am aware that cashew nuts, along with sugar, rice and cotton, are important in the rural and agricultural areas. I hope that the situation will improve and that the industry will recover. As regards the Government's poverty action plan to bring prosperity to the poorest of the poor, I should be glad to know how the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, reckons that is actually working today.
Perhaps I may also refer to the question of debt, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. I believe that 80 per cent of the debt being written off is quite insufficient, as this is one of the poorest of the poor countries. It will not take many billions of dollars to write it off, in comparison with what was found, for example, for the Asian economies when they were rescued a year ago. I look forward to hearing from the Minister the present position with regard to the write-off of debt, which is obviously crucially important for the future of the country. It cannot afford even that 100 million dollar debt repayment each year.
I turn now to health and education, to which reference has been made. Can the noble Baroness tell us how the campaign to eradicate polio by next year is progressing? It would be very good news to hear that that has been eradicated from the country. Have the UK Government contributed towards the cost of bringing about that eradication? I am not talking about a large sum of money, but it would relieve much suffering in that country. Further, can the Minister say whether the cost of doing this has been covered for Mozambique?
I am also concerned about the health needs of the under-fives. Can the Minister say whether the health of these children is improving? I recently read that 45 per cent were undernourished. Indeed, as has already been touched upon, there is a great need for rural basic health services, as the distance to the nearest doctor's practice may be much too far away.
There is also a need for primary and secondary schools. Can the noble Baroness say whether there has been any progress in that respect? I confirm what the

97
noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, said; namely, that the rural literacy rate for women is half that of the general population as a whole.
Can the Minister say what is the progress on roads and railways generally, especially for rural road access to markets? It is often difficult for people who grow their own crops to get to where such crops can be sold. Further, can the Minister tell the House how landmine clearance is proceeding, particularly in the food production areas and those areas adjacent to school and health facilities?
Logging was another problem, which came to my attention. Much indiscriminate felling of trees took place, which gave rise to fears of possible desertification of some areas. Can the Minister say whether that has now been stopped or whether it is now being planned?
A year ago I met Bishop Denis Singulani of the Anglican Church in Mozambique. Al. that time he was conducting a marvellous programme for interpreting in today's language the biblical injunction to change swords into ploughshares. He told me that many weapons were being handed in and destroyed. In exchange, people were receiving a farm implement, a sewing-machine or something like that. That seemed to me that the Anglican Church was taking a very positive step in the country. I greatly look forward to hearing the Minister's response. If she wishes to write to me in relation to some of the points I raised, I shall be very happy to receive a letter.
7.59p.m.
Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, I join in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for having introduced this debate. Indeed it is timely and opportune that this debate should be introduced not only because Her Majesty will be on one of her few visits to Mozambique next month but also because of the imminent second general election on 3rd and 4th December.
As for what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to help reconstruction and development, credit ought to be given to Her Majesty's Government as well as to the international community for their tremendous support since the peace accord in 1992 in transforming what was ranked as the world's poorest country in the early 1990s to, in the words of the Financial Times' special edition on Mozambique last week,
"an unlikely member of the elite club of the Tiger economies at the end of the 1990s".
That is a remarkable achievement.
However, this is not a note of complacency but more an acknowledgement of the extraordinary success of the country's economic reform programme since it was launched in 1986, largely supported by international donors. While the Financial Times special report commended the country's economic achievements it cautioned,
"progress is likely to he hampered by a skills shortage, poor infrastructure and corruption within the bureaucracy".
98
As we are all aware, despite the immensely impressive economic growth over the past decade, Mozambique is still one of the world's poorest countries with GDP per person less than 200 dollars per annum, compared with 3,000 dollars per annum in South Africa and almost 28,000 dollars in America.
I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, when she called for more recognition for the role of women in Mozambique. I am sure Mrs Machel would greatly applaud those comments as for a long time she has called for greater recognition of the role of women. Clearly the challenges, notably the low adult literacy ratio resulting in a natural skills shortage and the desperate need to increase the school enrolment ratios, as well as the need to reduce the high percentage of the population who live in poverty, remain major challenges to be addressed by the Government. However, there is clear evidence that the Mozambique Government are facing up to these problems but it will take well over a decade to catch up with some of the other African countries, notably Ghana and Uganda. As regards catching up with South Africa and Zimbabwe, that could arguably take several decades, if not 30 years.
I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that in the run up to the election in the interests of long-term democracy, support should be given for a strong and credible opposition party. 'Even though Frelimo is expected to win the election, many observers believe that Renamo and its coalition with other smaller parties could make the election result far closer than many think will be the case. There is no doubt that for there to be sustainable economic growth there needs to be sustainable political democracy and stability.
Among several of his achievements Mr Chissano has implemented one of the most vigorous privatisation programmes in Africa and sought to reduce further foreign debt exposure combined with controlling public expenditure. Certainly a major boost for Mozambique was the 3.7 billion dollars—the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, mentioned a figure of just under 2 billion, but my understanding is that the figure was 3.7 billion dollars—debt relief in July under the heavily indebted poor countries initiative.
The privatisation, particularly of the banks, has paved the way for the opening of the Mozambique stock exchange later this month. While donor assistance played a key role in reversing the downward spiral of the economy in the 1980s and the early 1990s, private investment, particularly by foreign companies from South Africa and Portugal, has ensured a relatively sustainable economic recovery. The two notable projects from South Africa are the opening of the Maputo corridor linking industrial companies in South Africa to the port of Mozambique and the Mozal aluminium smelter which is due to start production in the middle of next year. This increase in private sector inflow should, to a large degree, offset the reduction in future aid inflows into Mozambique.
In conclusion, in addition to the encouraging economic developments unfolding in the country, one of the main challenges for the next millennium in

99
alleviating poverty will be the revival of agriculture so as to narrow the income gap between those who live in the rural areas and those who live in the urban areas. I certainly look forward to hearing what Her Majesty's Government and DFID will continue to do to complement this process. As someone who has lived most of his life in South Africa, my prayer and my hope for the next millennium is that Angola, a country which has been ravaged by civil war but with huge economic potential, will seize the initiative from Mozambique for a lasting peace and the rewards that come with that.
8.6p.m.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, I join with those who have congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, on raising this important topic. We do well to remember the horrific circumstances which Mozambique faced on achieving its independence. It suffered greatly from the activities of the apartheid government in South Africa and their surrogates, Renamo, which attacked and destroyed everything positive in the country: schools, hospitals, farms and local administration. This, coupled with a severe drought, resulted in mass starvation and economic collapse. It has been estimated that the destabilisation cost the country about 15 billion dollars.
Fortunately, over the past five years there has been an improvement and impressive growth. The country now manages to feed itself and exports both maize and sugar. There has been massive investment in an aluminium smelter which will have a huge impact on the gross domestic product. The GDP has been growing at a rate of 10 per cent. per annum while inflation has been kept low. The currency has stabilised, ending years of depreciation. That is good news, but we have to remember, as we have been reminded during the debate, that Mozambique is still one of the poorest countries in the world and the fruits of recovery are unevenly spread throughout the population. As we have been reminded, the GDP per capita is only 210 dollars per annum.
I wish to press the matter of debt because it is central to the future of Mozambique. Under the heavily indebted poor countries initiative debt will be reduced by 1.7 billion dollars, with repayments down from around 114 million dollars to 73 million dollars per annum. Further debt relief has been promised under the Cologne terms which could reduce payments to 55 million dollars a year. Nevertheless that is still a huge amount of money and the Mozambique Government and civil society have called for the debt to be completely written off. I am aware of and applaud the efforts being made on debt relief by my right honourable friends Clare Short and Gordon Brown, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I certainly wish to encourage them to continue to work for a complete debt write-off.
The importance of the rural economy to the people of Mozambique has been stressed. Mozambique's agriculture has had a reasonable spell but farmers' income is dependent on well functioning markets. It is
100
important that those people who are to buy the produce obtain some form of credit at reasonable terms in order to fuel the whole system.
I wish to reinforce the issue concerning the cashew nuts industry. Under the guidance of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, the Government in Mozambique have privatised the processing industry. However, following the privatisation, the Bretton Woods institutions demanded that the surtax on the export of unprocessed cashews, which protected the national processing industry, be reduced and eventually removed altogether. As a result of this tariff, almost the whole of the processing industry has had to close down as unprocessed nuts were exported to India, forcing thousands of workers into unemployment.
The Mozambique Parliament, the Assembly of the Republic, voted last month to increase the surcharge. In theory, this jeopardises the debt reduction promised under HIPC and by the major creditors. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will support the decision of the Mozambique Government and that they will work within the IMF and the World Bank to keep debt relief on track.
It often seems that in helping developing countries the world's institutions give with one hand and take away with the other. We recognise the huge poverty of the majority of the population; we recognise that aid is targeted to help the poorest of the poor; but we again give with one hand and take away with the other. For example, the demand that the Mozambique Government introduce charges for water consumption can only do harm in a society where problems with sanitation can lead to increased disease, such as diarrhoea, which can be deadly to the young and vulnerable. Much greater attempts need to be made to understand the circumstances of the country with which we are dealing when trying to impose private sector solutions on developing countries.
I wish to make two other points. First, we need to deal with the major killer in Mozambique; that is malaria. A great deal of research and help is needed to reduce malaria. Secondly, how can we deal with the problem of AIDS, which is becoming increasingly serious? It is estimated that 10 per cent of the population currently have HIV, and it is increasing. How can the developing countries deal with that situation? What can we do to help them deal with this huge problem?
There is one other way in which the Government can help in relation to the economy of Mozambique: they could buy or encourage the international community to buy surplus maize from Mozambique and distribute it as food aid in Angola, where thousands of people face starvation in that war-torn country.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, has done us all a service by introducing the debate. The future of Mozambique is strong, positive and optimistic. All of us who wish Mozambique well will hope that our Government will do all they can to help in the future.
8.13 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I agree fully with the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and with other noble Lords who have spoken. Mozambique well deserves the favours it is receiving currently from the international community. I refer to its status as the latest HIPC to qualify; the encouragement it is receiving from the IMF; its membership of the Commonwealth. and its position as one of the European Union's major aid recipients. The UK alone committed £22 million in bilateral aid last year, placing it close to partners such as Kenya and Ghana.
All this has come from an unusual combination of circumstances. Mozambique has an appalling recent history of bloodshed and colonial neglect. I remember the terror of years of civil war from a short visit to the Church's relief programmes in the 1980s. But it is not sympathy from Europe today so much as the tough conditions that we are offering for our aid, debt relief and trade which now enable us to stand beside Mozambique as donors, potential trading partners and investors.
The cynics say that only the Lack of valuable minerals has saved Mozambique from Angola's fate, but it has other resources: the Maputo corridor; above all, the people of Mozambique, who are determined to return to a degree of prosperity; exports and tourism; economic growth, now close to 10 per cent; and, as we heard, inflation has all but disappeared. Mozambique is a success story; it is off the danger list.
Yet there are shadows, as I discovered during a meeting with Mozambique MPs earlier this year. Some concerned human rights, insecurity and lack of reconciliation; some concerned land ownership and the lack of capital in rural areas. To all of us, the most critical warning sign is the high proportion of people—90 per cent—in extreme poverty, higher than almost anywhere else in Africa; and women's literacy, lower than anywhere else. How will the Department for International Development achieve one of its stated policy aims, an improvement in the condition of the poor?
I asked the noble Baroness this question in a debate this summer: will cur aid programme have the capacity to realise this aim? Or will it, because of the need for skilled personnel and hi-tech programmes, be tempted to remain in the sectors of transport and public services and export-led private investment? The DfID is stretched. While supporting major programmes, such as the Customs service, through the Crown Agents, it is also looking for ways of developing health and social services on the ground and specialised work in sectors such as water resources and demining.
I understand the importance of infrastructure, but I know how easy it is for us outsiders to send more experts and even run the services in the cities, and how hard it is to identify projects in the poorer rural areas, where education and training can take place at an appropriate level, such as the VSO schemes the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, described. The two have to hang together. In Mozambique—as often in post-conflict countries—it is difficult to spend money
102
effectively precisely because of the lack of infrastructure and of trained people. I remember from my visit meeting young graduates who were in such demand from government that they hardly had time to think or sleep.
Here I have a more general question. Technical assistance is a sine qua non—we all see the necessity for it. But how much is the Government doing to train people inside the country. I know that there is a valuable British Council programme, but it is on a comparatively small scale. What is the record of Mozambique trainees after they return? I suspect that many who have been educated abroad go into the private sector. Are we training at too high a level? How much inter-regional training is taking place? Are we doing enough to help the very effective small NGOs, such as the Rural Mutual Aid Association, whose work is described in this month's DfID magazine? What is the outcome of the DfID workshop on land rights held in February?
There is an urgent need to support local institutions, especially in agriculture. I was delighted to read of our Government's support for a rural roads project in Zambezia province. That is just the kind of thing we should support. My visits to Africa always leave me with the impression that any money given to hi-tech large-scale projects—which, we should not forget, help our own economy at the same time—could have been invested in sustainable development.
I have another question for the Minister: how will the Paris Club or the IMF donors ensure that the considerable funds now arising in the form of debt relief will genuinely contribute to the eradication of poverty? Will there be some kind of local monitoring of debt relief such as takes place in Uganda.
I do not belittle progress so far, even though it has come from a low base. The Government have just published their Poverty Action Plan. The IMF reports on the improvement of social indicators. In 1996–1998. the primary school enrolment rate increased from 62 per cent to 71 per cent; coverage for key vaccinations increased from 58 per cent to 77 per cent; primary classrooms have increased by more than 60 per cent. These are encouraging statistics against Mozambique's recent political background.
But to sustain them, as is the case in many African countries, our Government will have to place even more emphasis on improving those skills which directly benefit the poor.
8.19 p.m.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for introducing the debate. As noble Lords have observed, the first state visit of Her Majesty to Mozambique will take place on the 15th of next month. We on these Benches have no doubt that that occasion will buttress the good relations engendered as a result of previous ministerial visits, not least that of the Minister this year. Visits to our own shores by President Chissano, other members of his government and by members of Renamo have been just as frequent.

103
I make this point for a simple reason. Good and honest relations between nations are the seed-bed from which trust and healthy dialogue can flourish. Processes of reconstruction and development, upon which the noble Lord's Question concentrates, flow quite naturally from that. Within the general terms of the noble Lord's Question, and while acknowledging that everyone would always wish that more could be done, I believe that the Government's approach to Mozambique is to be commended. Suffice it to say that this is comprehensively and succinctly defined in DfID's Country Strategy Paper for Mozambique, with rural development in the Zambezia province and the customs reform project being of particular note.
As noble Lords have observed, presidential and parliamentary elections are due to take place early in December. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, made the point that since the end of the debilitating and destructive civil war in 1992 and the democratic elections of 1994, the country has made great strides in delivering to its people good governance. As the Secretary of State for International Development observed:
"Good governance is a crucial component of the economic policies that benefit the poor".—[Official Report, Commons, 29/4/98; col. 312.]
But last year's municipal elections, with voter turnout of only 15 per cent nationwide, are a cloud on the horizon. Democracy is as much about participation as it is about representation. I ask the Minister to clarify what assistance the Government are giving to Mozambique in this context?
Other noble Lords have quite rightly mentioned debt relief. We on these Benches attach as much importance as the Government to the HIPC initiative. It would have been nonsense for Mozambique to have been excluded from the provisions by virtue of the Paris Club's 80 per cent threshold. The Government's action in offering their pledge of 10 million dollars of additional relief as a catalyst for others to follow is therefore to be applauded. But, despite this success, we hope that the Government acknowledge—perhaps the Minister can confirm this—that there are risks associated with pursuing unilateral action; that, in the words of the International Development Committee of another place, this should be,
"reserved for occasional cases where it will unlock relief from other creditors".
Debt relief has many virtues, in so far as it is a mechanism that can inspire sustainable economic management within the nations concerned. But there are two sides to every coin. As other noble Lords have observed, the continuing presence and involvement of the Commonwealth Development Corporation will be critical, particularly as a conduit to attract foreign investment. As of 1998, the CDC had a portfolio invested in and committed to Mozambique of over £50 million and growing. I hope that the Minister can give the House some more up-to-date figures in this context, as well as confirming that the Government are committed to using their influence to facilitate the CDC's capacity to expand yet further in the area.
104
As observed by my noble friend Lord Brentford, this underscores an important aspect of Mozambique's development in recent years, its forging of meaningful links regionally and geopolitically. President Chissano's current chairmanship of the SADC enhances the reputation of his country regionally. Equally, Mozambique's admission to the Commonwealth in 1995 affords her a much wider profile globally, as exemplified by the international conference in May of this year when the signatories to the Ottawa Convention met in Maputo. Indeed, in this context, and like other noble Lords, we on these Benches would welcome the Government's assessment of progress on mine clearance. The benefits of the work of the NGOs and Churches in Mozambique—I take this opportunity to pay tribute to them—should not be underestimated. All of this is important, not only in terms of engendering greater credibility throughout the world, but also in terms of instilling self-belief and self-esteem among the Mozambican people.
I have one final point to make. Having reviewed various pronouncements from the Government as to their future plans for aid, I have emerged somewhat confused. In a verbal answer in July 1998 the Secretary of State stated,
"We are likely to treble our programme over the next few years".
Conversely, the Country Strategy Paper, dated this month, states:
"We envisage doubling the bilateral programme by 2001".
I simply ask the Minister which commitment we should view as the correct one.
I look forward to the response of the noble Baroness, not only to my questions, but to all the many issues that have been raised in this most intriguing debate.
8.25 p.m.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for initiating this important debate about Mozambique's development. I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and other noble Lords for their positive comments about the work being undertaken by the British Government in Mozambique.
I agree with the noble Lord that the debate is timely. He referred to the state visit. Her Majesty the Queen, accompanied by His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, will pay her first state visit to Mozambique on 15th November, following the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Durban. The visit programme will include meetings with the leaders of the two main parties and the formal opening of UK-Mozambique Co-operation Week and the British Council's new classrooms. There will also be a state banquet.
The noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, specifically raised the question of the benefit to Mozambique of membership of the Commonwealth. Mozambique is the 44th and most recent member of the Commonwealth. The wider benefits of being part

105
of a Commonwealth community will flow to Mozambique, as will other regional implications. Several noble Lords have already referred to the fact that President Chissano has an important regional role as chairman of the Southern African Development Community. He took over the role at the SADC Summit in Maputo in August 1999.
The Government of Mozambique are committed to poverty elimination and are firmly in control of their own development process. Their development priorities include public investment in health, education, water and sanitation, as well as actively supporting strategies to increase agricultural productivity in rural areas. There is evidence from elsewhere in Africa and beyond that sound macroeconomic policies are essential in the fight against poverty. Countries with stable economies tend to grow faster. I am pleased to acknowledge that the Government of Mozambique have been following sound macro-economic policies for over a decade and that their macro-economic policies remain stable. None-the-less, the Mozambique Government remain concerned that high growth is not having an adequate impact on levels of poverty; hence their commitment to using resources released by HIPC to increase spending on activities that help to reduce poverty.
The British Government have been a regular provider of fast dispersing programme aid to Mozambique in recent years, in particular through the provision of direct budgetary support to help the Mozambique Government meet the costs of servicing their debts to international financial institutions. I shall return to debt, relief presently.
Political stability is also important, and I hope that the parliamentary and presidential elections due to be held in early December will further strengthen democracy. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, made reference to the importance of those elections, while other noble Lore s have referred to the need for promoting good governance. Our Government are funding the costs of international observers for the elections, which will include the training of local observers and the provision of post-election recommendations to the Government of Mozambique on improving systems for future elections. In addition, we are contributing to a joint EU election observation mission which will co-ordinate with others sent by our EU partners to observe the elections in all provinces of the country. I should like to say to the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, that more than 85 per cent of potential voters registered between July and September. I hope that that is a good sign in terms of the numbers who will actually participate in the elections.
The outcome of both the presidential and parliamentary votes could be close but a peaceful and generally fair election is expected. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that a new election law was passed in December last year to address Renamo's concerns over the Jane 1998 municipal elections. The voter registration law was amended to call for new registration for the entire electorate, which took place
106
from July to September this year. These laws will govern the holding of the 1999 general election in December.
The British Government's development assistance programme in Mozambique has as its main aim a poverty elimination focus, in particular by developing programmes in key sectoral areas such as health and education, where the benefits will be felt by the poorest. We envisage a growing programme with more national impact.
I can assure the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, that our programme will support Mozambique's own poverty reduction strategy and will encourage progress towards the international development targets through four main impact areas: improved economic and financial management; a more effective and efficient public service; sustainable rural livelihoods; and improved quantity and quality of education and health for poor people. To achieve this ambitious programme, partnership with the Government of Mozambique, with civil society and the private sector is essential. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, that that partnership is important and that we need to pay tribute to the work of civil society in this area.
I shall now try to address the specific issues raised by noble Lords but in the time available I may not be able to cover all areas. I undertake to write to noble Lords if I do not manage to cover a specific question or issue. My noble friend Lord Hughes of Woodside, the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, and the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, raised the question of debt relief. Mozambique received HIPC debt relief in June 1999. Before receiving HIPC relief, it would have cost Mozambique 2.7 billion dollars to pay off all its official debts in one go. HIPC reduces this sum by 1.7 billion dollars. Mozambique's debts will he cut further by approximately 250 million dollars when the revised HIPC package agreed at the annual meetings of the IMF and World Bank is applied retrospectively to Mozambique. This will halve the amount that the Mozambique Government spend on servicing their external debt in comparison to what they were paying in the five years before HIPC. I can assure the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, that the Government of Mozambique are committed to spending the domestic resources released by external debt relief on activities which will help reduce poverty in Mozambique. We have developed a country strategy paper following consultation and we are committed to monitoring the effectiveness of our programmes.
Our Government have been a leading supporter of the Government of Mozambique's eligibility for HIPC debt relief. We have contributed approximately £1 5 million to help the African Development Bank meet its costs of writing down its Mozambican debts. We have also used programme aid to help ensure that the Government of Mozambique could meet the costs of servicing international financial institution debts in the run up to HIPC. However, we do not support the call for total debt forgiveness. Concessional resources that are required for HIPC and other forms of

107
development assistance are finite. Cancelling all Mozambique's debts would be at the expense of other poor countries, not all of which are benefiting from the HIPC initiative. While we need to cancel the unpayable debt, we need to recognise that debt of itself is not bad. All countries have debt, and invested wisely loans will enable a country to develop more quickly. Our Government cancelled all Mozambique's aid debts to them in the 1980s.
My noble friend Lady Warwick mentioned the importance of sustainable rural livelihoods. The noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, is correct. Almost 80 per cent of Mozambicans live in rural areas and most are smallholder farmers. About 71 per cent of the rural population lives in absolute poverty. Improving the returns to smallholders is critical if poverty is to be cut. Mozambique has enormous agricultural potential and there has been a large increase in agricultural output since the end of the civil war in 1992, as returning refugees brought their land back into cultivation. Until recently, most of DfID's assistance has been provided through international NGOs. The largest of those is the World Vision Rural Livelihood Programme in Zambezia which aims to deliver research, extension credit and restocking of livestock to the poorest farmers.
With respect to gender discrimination, as raised by my noble friend Lady Warwick, a key strand of DfID policy is the removal of gender discrimination in all our programmes. Rather than initiating small-scale projects which target women directly, DfID is aiming to mainstream a focus on gender across the different sector activities. I do not have time to go into examples of that.
The noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, mentioned transport. A great deal of Mozambique's infrastructure was either deliberately destroyed during the war or deteriorated owing to a lack of maintenance. The Government of Mozambique have sought donor funding for the rehabilitation of key public infrastructure and there have been impressive gains. The school network has been returned to its prewar coverage, the coverage of primary health facilities has expanded and more than half the road network has been rehabilitated, some of that with funds from the British Government.
A number of noble Lords mentioned health. Since the end of the civil war the government's health sector recovery programme has made significant progress in replacing health infrastructure destroyed in the conflict. On the specific question of polio eradication, the Secretary of State for International Development announced an additional £20 million for a programme of polio eradication.
A number of noble Lords mentioned the importance of private sector development and foreign investment. Mozambique has only a small but rapidly developing private sector, based largely in Maputo. The Government of Mozambique have been successful in attracting inward investment. That includes a 1.3 billion dollar MOZAL aluminium smelter which is part funded by the CDC. DfID is considering
108
supporting a multi-donor funded, but Government of Mozambique/private sector-led, programme to help formal sector businesses devise strategies to improve their competitiveness.
My noble friend Lord Hughes raised the specific issue of cashew nuts. There have been criticisms that the conditionality included in these programmes infringes on Mozambique's sovereignty. A Bill has recently been pushed through the Mozambique national assembly awarding a slightly greater degree of protection for the cashew processing industry. I cannot go into the question of land mines now but I will write to noble Lords.
In closing, I want to leave the House with the impression that I gained when I was in Mozambique earlier this year. It is one of the poorest countries in the world but immense hope is felt there—not only among politicians, civil servants and businessmen but ordinary people. Mozambique is an emerging success story. The Government are committed to continuing to support Mozambique's efforts to lift millions of ordinary Mozambicans out of poverty.

Greater London Authority Bill
8.39 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Clause 317 [The Mayor's air quality strategy]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 544WA:
Page 176, line 34, leave out ("likely") and insert ("predicted").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I will speak also to Amendments Nos. 544XA and 544ZA. This small group of amendments relates to air quality strategy. Two of them are relatively unimportant but one is most important.
Clause 317(3)(a) states that the London air quality strategy shall contain information about
"the air quality in Greater London and the likely future air quality in Greater London."
The word "likely" is imprecise and we would prefer it changed to "predicted". This is one of those debates about the meaning of words that the Minister and I will continue to have over the years, if we are both blessed and spared.
Amendment No. 544XA would remove the words
"to be encouraged by the Mayor"
from Clause 317(3)(c), so that it would read
"the measures which other persons or bodies are to take for the purpose of the implementation of the London air quality strategy."
That is more positive than measures that the mayor encourages people to take. Some people might take adversely to encouragement from the mayor. If that provision is removed, they will be obliged to take such steps, which would be a good thing.
Amendment No. 544ZA is more significant than the previous amendments—which, it could be argued, are a matter of taste in the English language. Clause 324 deals with consultation by local authorities with the mayor. Those mentioned are

109
"(a) any local authority in Greater London,
(b) any local authority whose area is contiguous to the area of Greater London."
In any prolonged period of high pressure during the summer, one of the most polluted atmospheres in the country, surprisingly, is coastal Suffolk. That pollution arrives from the Ruhr because in continuous, relatively still conditions and high pressure, that is the way pollution drifts.
If the atmospheric conditions are right, much of the sulphur that is deposited on the ground or is present in the atmosphere in this country arises in the south of France and northern Spain. Again, that is due to atmospheric drift.
Anybody who took the trouble to examine the maps that were produced with great accuracy after the Chernobyl disaster will be aware that radioactive dust from that particular hiatus travelled huge distances, sometimes at heights not far from the ground. Where that appalling dust finally landed was very much a lottery.
Atmospheric movement is unpredictable, so we thought it appropriate to add to Clause 324,
"any local authority other than those mentioned…which shall be otherwise affected."
The result of the movement of atmospheric pollution from London has not yet been sufficiently studied. We can he reasonably confident that it does not stop at the boundaries of those authorities that are contiguous with London. We can be absolutely certain that pollution spreads much further than that.
I accept that there are difficulties in deciding where that boundary might lie, but authorities that may be adversely affected as a consequence of atmospheric movement, when more is known about it, should not be prevented from having a say in matters in which they could have a direct and positive interest. I ask the Minister seriously to consider Amendment No. 544ZA, whatever he does with the two other amendments in the group. I beg to move.
8.45p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, Amendment No. 544YA enables matters that the mayor considers should be drawn to the attention of the Secretary of State to be included among the information that the air quality strategy may contain.
In Committee, my noble friend Lady Hamwee pointed out that the mayor might discover during the course of research matters that it would be useful for the Secretary of State to know, and that it would be useful for the public to be aware that the Secretary of State would know about them. The Minister was sympathetic to that suggestion and asked for the opportunity to consider it, with the possibility of returning to the matter at a later stage.
Although the Government have not chosen to take up that opportunity, they have accepted the principle that there might be instances where such a provision would be useful. As the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said, air moves and is in no one's particular domain much of the time. Often, there may be issues
110
that are more relevant to decisions that the Secretary of State can make but the mayor needs to feel that he or she can exert some influence. I look to the Minister for further explanation as to why the Government have not felt able to incorporate an amendment for which they previously had some sympathy.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, each amendment raises a different issue. Amendment No. 544WA would require the strategy to contain information about "predicted" rather than "likely" air quality. If something is likely, it has a high probability of occurring but is not absolutely certain. If something is predicted, that, too, is supported by evidence—so the difference is not that clear. The wording in the clause is the same as that used in the Environment Act 1995, which refers, as does the Bill, to "likely future air quality" in the context of local authorities' air quality management duties. So it is for consistency that we have used the word "likely" in this provision. I have not been convinced that there is any need to change it.
The second of the noble Lord's amendments would require the mayor's air quality strategy to contain information about measures which persons or bodies are to take for the purpose of implementing that strategy, rather than information about measures which the mayor encourages them to take. The Bill already requires the mayor's air quality strategy to contain certain information. Some of that information relates to measures which are to be taken by the authority, by Transport for London, and so on. The words "are to be taken" reflect the fact that in that set of circumstances the mayor can influence the actions of those bodies. In contrast, the amendment would require the strategy to contain information about measures to be taken by persons or bodies over which the mayor has no influence but only the ability to encourage. That is therefore a different category from those relating to the functional bodies of the authority. I trust that, on reflection, the noble Lord will agree that the amendment would be inappropriate.
Amendment No. 544YA, tabled by the noble Baroness, would require the mayor to include in the strategy such matters as he or she considers should be drawn to the attention of the Secretary of State. The noble Baroness is correct to say that my noble friend indicated that she thought that there was perhaps an issue here and we took the matter away for consideration. We have taken legal advice and, while not dissenting from the objectives presented to us by the noble Baroness, we believe that the amendment is unnecessary.
We entirely accept that the Secretary of State will need to be informed of progress in managing air quality in London. But Clause 317 of the Bill already requires the London air quality strategy to include information which will be relevant to the implementation of the strategy, including information relating to the measures that persons or bodies are to be encouraged by the mayor to take for the purposes of such implementation. That provision will allow the mayor to include information about the measures that he or she would like the Secretary of State to take for

111
the purpose of the implementation of the strategy or information that might be needed by the Secretary of State in order to take measures himself to support the strategy. Therefore, the existing provision in Clause 317 covers the point sought by the noble Baroness.
I understand rather better than I did when I read it in black and white on the page the intention of the final amendment. I am not sure that it is in fact geared to the noble Lord's objectives. I understand both the argument that it is not necessarily boroughs within London or authorities immediately contagious to London—I should say "contiguous" to London, although in this context they would possibly be contagious as well! I was not quite sure whether the noble Lord sought to extend the number of boroughs that must consult the mayor to the Ukraine, as appeared at one point. Certainly, pollution arises on the Suffolk coast, for example, which may affect London; and pollution in boroughs down-wind of London may affect authorities beyond London.
But the obligation in this clause is on boroughs which must consult the mayor, not boroughs which the mayor must consult. Clearly, if implications arise from the mayor's air quality strategy that affect other local authorities throughout the UK, the mayor should consult those authorities. He may wish to consult authorities whose situation he believes may detrimentally affect his strategy. But this is a requirement on those authorities to consult the mayor. I am not necessarily suggesting that the noble Lord should think up another amendment at this stage in the Bill, but I believe that he is approaching the matter the wrong way round. I hope, therefore, that he will not pursue the amendment.
I hope that in the light of these explanations, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment and that the other amendments will not be pressed.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, his final point applies equally to areas which are up-wind of London. Am I right in understanding that under the amendment to the Environment Act, areas which are not contiguous to Greater London but which might give rise to pollution that affects London are not required to consult the mayor?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, that is indeed the case, as it is under local authority legislation more generally. There is no overall requirement for a local authority to consult on the effects of its own air quality strategy except in specific circumstances in relation to particular pollution matters. The desirability of consulting is still there. But, as I say, the amendment would in any case provide a requirement to consult the other way round.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I hear what the Minister says. With regard to the first two amendments in the group, I think I am content. I did not expect either more or less than I received. With
112
regard to the third amendment, if I misinterpreted the clause, then I am at risk. However, I think I shall find it irresistible to attempt to return to the matter.
There is a very real problem. At present, not sufficient is known about atmospheric movement. Atmospheric movement takes place vertically as well as horizontally. What is presumed to be the prevailing wind on the ground is all too often not the prevailing wind at 5,000 or 10,000 feet. That can often be observed by standing and feeling the wind on your face and watching the clouds move in a completely different direction over your head. There is an issue here, and I shall consider it further. Whether I need to do anything about it at Third Reading remains to be seen. I do not wish to make the mayor's life difficult but in regard to atmospheric pollution we all need to be much more conscious of what we are doing and of the fact that it can have a surprising impact in locations that are not the ones we first think of. That said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 544XA and 544YA not moved.]
Clause 324 [Consultation with the Mayor]:
[Amendment No. 544ZA not moved.]
9 p.m.
Clause 325 [The London ambient noise strategy]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 544A:
Page 179, line 26, leave out ("contain") and insert ("consist of").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 544B, 544C, 544D, 544DA and 544F. I shall refer later to the reason for not moving Amendment No. 544E.
Clause 325 requires the mayor to prepare and publish a "London ambient noise strategy". In Committee, we agreed to look at this clause again. The amendments tabled here are lengthy but are not as dramatic as they seem.
Our purpose is to clarify what is expected from the mayor's London ambient noise strategy so as better to reflect the intentions contained in the White Paper. The amendments also address concerns expressed during earlier stages of the Bill about transport being included in the strategy and consultation with the Environment Agency.
The sharp-eyed among your Lordships will have noticed that a typographical error has crept into Amendment No. 544E. The words "(e) or (f)" in line 1 of subsection (4A) should not be there, because if this amendment were agreed to there would be no paragraphs (e) or (f) in Clause 325(4). I shall not move Amendment No. 544E today and will come back with a correct amendment at Third Reading. We note that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is not in his place. I am sure that he would have enjoyed this moment.
A number of drafting changes limit what the strategy may consist of, remove reference to the spatial development strategy and ensure that the Environment Agency is consulted when the mayor prepares or revises

113
his strategy. We have also provided that the mayor's strategy may contain information about the impact of noise on those living and working in London. By way of background, Amendment No.544E deletes the existing subsection (4) and replaces it with a new form of words that detail the types of noise excluded from the mayor's strategy. They are the matters dealt with by local authorities under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and by local authorities and the Health and Safety Executive under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. This amendment would remove the reference to statutory nuisance so that if a local authority did not, on investigation, consider noise from premises to be a statutory nuisance it would not come within the remit of the ambient noise strategy of the mayor. There is a provision to ensure that noise caused by aircraft and traffic and from a fixed industrial source is not excluded from the strategy.
I turn to Amendment No. 544DA proposed by the noble Baronesses. Lady Hamwee and Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer. It is our intention that the definition of "ambient noise" in the mayor's strategy should be widened to include all transport. I agreed to consider the wording of the clause when the noble Baronesses tabled amendments in Committee. The amendments now Brought forward by the Government respond to the change tabled here. I therefore ask that that amendment be withdrawn.
I apologise for going into the detail at length but I felt that, having given notice that there would be a further amendment tabled at Third Reading, it would be helpful for noble Lords to read it in advance. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for accepting the point that I raised at the previous stage—Amendment No. 544DA—and dealing with it. I note her observation about noise that is not regarded as a statutory nuisance. I am rather disappointed by that approach. Ambient noise goes much wider than noise which comes from a particular source that is a statutory nuisance. I believe that the aim of the mayor should be to attempt to reduce the overall noise level, whether or not it is a statutory nuisance. Noise is an enormous factor in stress. From these Benches we have said a good deal about the role of the mayor in improving health. I remain unconvinced that the approach contained in Amendment No. 544E, and whatever may be its successor at the next stage, is the right one.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, perhaps I may address two points. I appreciate that Amendment No. 544E is to be amended. First, will the provision cover amplified music? Reference is made to loudspeakers and amplified music. Secondly, as to Amendment No. 544G, no mention is made of helicopter noise. There is a good deal of civil as well as police helicopter activity. Is that covered?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I appreciate that we may not have gone quite as far as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, would have liked, and
114
for that I am sorry. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, asks about the control of helicopter noise. It would not be appropriate for the mayor to exercise direct control since airspace planning and air traffic control are specialised tasks. As with other aircraft, the mayor will have the right to be consulted on any airspace changes that are liable to have significant adverse effects on the environment.
A query was raised about amplifiers. I betray my age and ignorance of more modern ways of making sound if I say that I would have thought it impossible to use a loudspeaker without amplification. I am not sure whether it is possible to amplify without the use of a loudspeaker. I believe that both points are covered, but if I am wrong about that I shall write to the noble Baroness.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, I suggest to the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, that Amendments Nos. 544B to 544D should be moved en bloc. However, I point out to the House that if Amendment No. 544D is agreed I cannot call Amendment No. 544DA.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendments Nos. 544B to 544D:
Page 179, line 27, at end insert ("and the impact of such noise levels on those living and working in Greater London").
Page 179, line 29, leave out from ("above") to ("on") in line 30.
Page 179, line 36, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("(3) In this section—

"ambient noise" means—

(a) noise related to transport, including road traffic, rail traffic, aircraft and water transport; and

(b) noise of such other descriptions as the Mayor may consider it appropriate to include in the matters dealt with by the London ambient noise strategy.

but does not include noise falling within subsection (4) below; and

"noise" includes vibration.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 544B to 544D en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 544DA not moved.]
[Amendment No. 544E not moved.]
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 544F:
Page 180, line 5, at end insert—
("( ) In preparing or revising the London ambient noise strategy the Mayor shall consult the Environment Agency.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 544G:
After Clause 325, insert the following new clause—

Greater London Authority Bill

  CONSULTATION ABOUT AVIATION NOISE
  (" .—(1) A person who provides air navigation services shall consult the Mayor about the matters specified in subsection (2) below where it is reasonably practicable to do so.
  (2) Those matters are—

  (a) the proposed alteration by that person of any route used regularly by civil aircraft before arrival at, or after departure from, any aerodrome;

  (b) the proposed addition by that person of any route to be so used;

  (c) any substantial alteration proposed to be made by that person to procedures used for managing the arrival of civil aircraft at any aerodrome,

  where the proposed alteration or addition will have a significant adverse effect on the noise caused by civil aircraft in Greater London.
  (3) For the purposes of subsection (2) above the reference to a route used regularly by civil aircraft includes a reference to the altitude at which such aircraft regularly fly.
  (4) In this section—

  "aerodrome" has the meaning given by subsection (1) of section 105 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982;

  "air navigation services" shall be construed in accordance with that subsection;

  "noise" includes vibration.").

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 544G I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 544H. These two additional clauses are designed to implement the commitment in the White Paper that the mayor will have the right to be consulted about any change in departure or arrival routes, or capacity, at airports that may have significant environmental effect, and for his or her views to be taken into account.
  Providers of air navigation services will be under a duty to consult the mayor where the carrying out of these services would have a significant adverse effect on noise or vibration caused by civil aircraft in Greater London.
  The mayor will be added to those organisations to be consulted by aerodromes which have been designated under Section 35 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982. Amendment No. 544G is a clause to introduce a duty on providers of air navigation services to consult the mayor. Amendment No. 544H will amend Section 35 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 to provide the designation by order of any aerodrome to the same effect.
  As my noble friend said earlier, clearly the air navigation system is responsible for air movements. The amendments provide the mayor with a means of influencing decisions which relate to the strategy on air traffic over London. I beg to move.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, perhaps I should declare an interest, living in west London, directly under the main flight path into Heathrow. However, it is an interest shared by many people who feel disturbed by aircraft noise in that sector of London. I express disappointment that the clause is relatively narrowly drafted. I should have liked to have seen a somewhat
  116
  tougher provision. At times, the existing noise level is pretty unbearable. People do not feel affected simply by alterations and additions.
  As I understand the clause—no doubt the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—the provision is merely a right to be consulted. The mayor has no powers which can be brought to bear. Can the Minister also confirm that the clause does not extend to additional movements on a specific route. The amendment refers to the addition of a route. A reference to "new route" might make the provision easier to understand. However, extra volume of traffic on a route is not covered. I hope that I have misread the amendment. I look forward to the Minister's clarification.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Government recognise the concerns about aircraft noise across London. We are determined to do whatever is practical to reduce the amount of aircraft-induced noise, in particular from Heathrow. After the phasing out of Chapter II traffic, which will be a major improvement, that becomes more difficult and there are uncertainties. We are doing all we can in relation to that.
  However, it would not be appropriate to give the mayor direct powers in this area, as was made clear by a number of noble Lords and myself in Committee. Clearly the managers of Heathrow would need to take seriously the mayor's views as regards the development of Heathrow.
  The mayor has the right to be consulted about any changes in departure or arrival routes, or any addition to those routes, and any change to the capacity at the airports. Therefore the mayor has some rights to influence over the volume as well as over the direction of aircraft. But it does not mean that the mayor is a party to decisions on the number of aircraft on a particular route at any given time. However, he has the ability to influence those strategic decisions.
  Earl Bathurst: My Lords, is the Minister satisfied that the mayor will have control over the height of aircraft? The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred to numbers, as did the Minister. Much of the noise involves the height of aircraft. Has the mayor the chance to regulate at what height aeroplanes come in over which area of London or elsewhere? Height is not mentioned.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, because the mayor has no direct powers in this respect, the answer is no. That is covered by the civil aviation Acts. There are strict regulations. The noble Earl may feel that they are not always observed. Sometimes heights are deceptive. Nevertheless, there are strict regulations over heights under the Civil Aviation Act and the regulations thereunder. It is the responsibility of the Secretary of State and the CAA in that regard.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 544H:
  After Clause 325, insert the following new clause—

  CONSULTATION AT AERODROMES
  (" .—(1) Section 35 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 (facilities to be provided by certain aerodromes for consultation with bodies representing local interests) shall be amended as follows.
  (2) After subsection (2) (persons or bodies to be consulted) there shall be inserted—
  "(3) The reference in subsection (2)(b) above to any local authority includes in relation to the area of Greater London a reference to the Mayor of London acting on behalf of the Greater London Authority.").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendments Nos. 545 and 545A not moved.]
  Schedule 25 [The Cultural Strategy Group for London]:
  9.15p.m.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 546:
  Page 342, line 29, at end insert—
  ("( ) In sub-paragraph (4) above "such bodies" shall include bodies with knowledge and experience of the needs of disabled people.").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 546, with the leave of the House, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 548 and 552. I have grouped these amendments together because there is a common purpose behind them.
  I wish to ask the Government what they believe should be the role of the authority, the mayor, and his or her cultural strategy group with regard to the promotion of good practice as it affects access to culture, media, sport and tourism in Greater London—access by those people who have special individual needs.
  I am sure that all noble Lords would agree that everybody loses out when disabled people do not have a chance to con tribute to society. As the Royal National Institute for Deaf People pointed out to me,
  "So often the omission of references to disabled people (in legislation or regulations) arises from pure oversight; and yet if they arc not explicit, the obligations to develop precise mechanisms for consultation and inclusion are not there".
  The RNID goes on to say,
  "Such mechanisms often save money in the long run because they reduce the need for expensive changes later on".
  There was a passing reference in our debate at Committee stage to the matter of access. I believe that this month is a particularly appropriate one in which to discuss such matters. It was at the beginning of October that the second stage of the Disability Discrimination Act came into force. The Act makes it illegal to discriminate against a disabled customer. However, the regulations that kicked in this month require providers of public services to take reasonable measures to change practices, policies and procedures which make it impossible or unreasonably difficult for disabled people to use a service.
  There are two other new obligations. The first is that one should provide auxiliary aids and services. The second is that one should provide the service by a
  118
  reasonable alternative where there is a significant barrier to access—something as common sense as reading out a menu to a customer who has problems with sight or reading.
  When I read the August issue of Hospitality Matters, which is the magazine of the British Hospitality Association, I learned that:
  "While some major groups [of hotels and restaurants] have recognised the implications of this, many hospitality businesses are unaware of what action they need to take both now and by 2004 when the Act is fully implemented".
  I note that they are not unwilling to make the changes. It is a matter of not knowing about them. I pay tribute, of course, to all hospitality businesses that have been working so hard to comply with the Act and the changes that came into effect this month.
  The basic problem remains that many businesses in London are simply unaware of the new requirements. I suppose it is hardly surprising, since the hospitality industry itself is necessarily made up of a vast number of small businesses, often family run, who will not have the Disability Discrimination Act on their bedside table as late night reading, or indeed a human resources department to help them.
  My general question behind this group of amendments is: what does the Government expect the authority, the mayor, the cultural strategy group to do about it? For the record, I will very briefly explain the effect of each amendment.
  Amendment No. 546 refers to the way in which the mayor appoints the members of the cultural strategy group. Paragraph 2(4) of Schedule 25 provides that when the mayor appoints members, he or she must first consult such bodies or persons as he or she considers appropriate. My amendment would make it clear that the bodies to be consulted should include those bodies that have knowledge and experience of the needs of disabled people.
  Amendment No. 548 refers to the draft strategy presented by the cultural strategy group to the mayor. My amendment would introduce a new requirement in Clause 329, the clause which states that the cultural strategy group shall put together a draft cultural strategy and present it to the mayor. My amendment would make it a requirement that the draft strategy should promote good practice among service providers to ensure that disabled people are not excluded from the enjoyment of culture, media and sport in Greater London. I claim no virtue out of choosing the wording. I have simply lifted it from the Access Survey which is currently being carried out nationwide by Scope, the organisation for people with cerebral palsy. I felt that if they had got it right, it must be right.
  The final amendment in this group, Amendment No. 552, inserts into Clause No. 331 a duty upon the authority
  "to promote good practice among businesses and community leaders to ensure that disabled people are not excluded from the enjoyment of tourism facilities in Greater London".

  119
  I commend the amendment to your Lordships.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hope the House will accept that we are very sympathetic to the intention behind this group of amendments. It is proper that the needs of disabled people should be considered and taken into account in relation to culture. Of course, the mayor can and, if I dare say so, should take account of the needs of disabled people in that way. The Government are particularly keen that disabled people should not be excluded from facilities and amenities that are accessible to others, nor from the enjoyment of culture which is fundamental to the quality of life of all of us.
  The noble Baroness, in moving the amendment, referred to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and I am grateful to her for quoting the parts of that Act which came into force at the beginning of this month. The point is that it applies to the whole of the United Kingdom, including Greater London. The cultural strategy group for London and the mayor will be able to make further specific provision for the disabled through the cultural strategy, to which the noble Baroness referred and which is referred to in Amendment No. 548, as part of the overall vision for cultural development in London.
  Noble Lords will recall that throughout the Bill there has been discussion about national policies and about their role in the policies of the Greater London Authority. In developing and carrying out his duties, in this respect as in all others, the mayor must also have regard to policies at the national level. As regards tourism duties, the point clearly made by the noble Baroness about the need for restaurants to be suitable for the deaf and other disabled people. The mayor will need to refer to the tourism strategy, Tomorrow's Tourism, which we published in February and which has been debated in this House on several occasions. The noble Baroness will recall that widening access to tourism opportunities is a key priority in the strategy.
  It is important that all aspects of the tourism experience are made accessible to everyone. In line with the Disability Discrimination Act, the strategy informs the industry of its duty as service provider to make "reasonable adjustments" for disabled people. The noble Baroness quoted the same part of the Act. For that reason, we believe that Amendment No. 552 is unnecessary.
  I turn to Amendment No. 546. I can confirm that bodies with knowledge and experience of the needs of disabled people are, under the existing terms of the Bill, ones from which the mayor may choose to appoint representatives to the cultural strategy group for London. It is precisely because we are reluctant to prescribe the content of the draft culture strategy that we want to leave the possibility that such issues may be included in the strategy. That reply refers to Amendment No. 548. As we have said on a number of occasions, attempts to cover everything in legislation are more likely to lead to important topics being excluded. This is the problem of lists, to which we shall return soon.
  120
  It is not our policy to prescribe all the good things we can expect the mayor to do. It is fundamental that we must leave it to the mayor's discretion. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendments.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am grateful for the Government's response because the Minister dared to comment on what the mayor should do. I appreciate that, throughout, the Government have assiduously avoided being prescriptive; so much so that when we on this side of the House have tried to punch the punch-bag of the Bill it has seemed to be full of nothing. However, on this occasion I welcome the Minister's comments that the cultural strategy put forward by the group to the mayor should give proper regard to the requirements of people with special needs and that the mayor, as the Minister dared to say, should have regard to such matters. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Anelay of St. Johns Baroness Anelay of St. Johns moved Amendment No. 547:
  Page 342, line 31, at beginning insert ("After formal consultation with the members of the Cultural Strategy Group,").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, paragraph 3 of Schedule 25 provides that the mayor shall appoint one of the members of the cultural strategy group to chair it. In Committee, I probed the procedure for appointing the chairman. At present, it is left to the mayor's personal preference. In debate, the noble Lord, Lord Annan, came up with what I thought was a rather practical and helpful suggestion to avoid the cronyism about which the House was concerned. Certainly, his suggestion is the basis of the amendment before the House this evening.
  Amendment No. 547 would leave the appointment with the mayor but would ensure that, before that appointment was made, he would first have to consult formally with the members of the cultural strategy group. That would make the process all the more transparent and give more credibility to the chairman, when appointed. I beg to move.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Baroness has certainly reported the terms of the Bill correctly. The Bill provides that the mayor should appoint one of the members of the cultural strategy group to chair the group. Amendment No. 547 would require the mayor to consult the members of the group before making the appointment. I too recall the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, describing with some passion things that had gone wrong in the British Museum some time ago.
  I recognise that the noble Baroness is compromising on the previous proposal that the group should make its own appointment. But we are talking about a new body—at least in the first instance. It seems to me most likely that the mayor will want to appoint the chair first and then to consult with the chair to appoint the cultural strategy group for London. In other words, the process will take place the other way round, and

  121
  not in the way suggested by this amendment. That is the approach normally adopted when setting up new bodies, at least in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. It seems to work well. It does not seem to smack too much of cronyism, and it seems to provide chairs who have something significant to contribute and groups with which they can work. If the amendment were passed, the procedures would be reversed. The mayor would have to make the appointments first so that he could consult the members.
  However, it may be that the mayor will wish to take soundings from the members already appointed, and it will be open to the mayor to do so. As I said before, we are giving the mayor the power to appoint somebody who has authority and experience over a wide range of cultural fields. It should be for the mayor to decide how he makes that appointment and whether to consult the group, but there will be no obstacle to that happening.
  I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that our proposals are more flexible and would provide the safeguards she seeks.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. The Government's flexibility could be abused, though not indeed, of course, if my noble friend Lord Archer were elected as the mayor to implement this proposal. There is always the worry that future candidates might act in a different manner. However, I take to heart the Minister's remarks about perhaps putting the cart before the horse, and on that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 329 [The Mayor's culture strategy]
  [Amendment N. 548 not moved.]
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 549:
  Page 181, line 3, at beginning insert ("Without prejudice to the generality of the duty imposed by subsection (1) above,").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving the amendment. with the leave of the House, I shall speak briefly also to Amendment No. 550 to which I have added my name but which will be spoken to far more expertly by my noble friend Lord Teviot. Both amendments refer to Clause 329(5).
  In Committee, we considered several amendments which tackled what your Lordships considered to be the deficiencies of. subsection (5). That subsection describes the policies that may be contained within the culture strategy. Concern was expressed from all sides of the House that the list omitted some vital policy issues. The Government were, however, keen to keep the list in its current form. At that stage, the noble Lord, Lord Whitey, held out some hope that the addition of only ore policy issue might. be accepted by the Government—that of archives. That was at col. 1716 of Hansard. I took careful note of what the
  122
  Minister said. My noble friends and I have taken great care subsequently to table only those amendments to Clause 329 which might meet his requirements.
  Amendment No. 549 was suggested to me by the Open Spaces Society as a practical and rather pragmatic way forward. I thank it for its assistance. The society has expressed its thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for his assurances in Committee that the GLA will have adequate powers to deal with the matters of open spaces and recreation. Those matters are of concern to the society as well as to the public at large.
  In a letter to the Minister it pointed out that it is extremely important that the eventual Act, together with the accompanying explanatory notes, should be reasonably clear to intelligent people who wish or need to understand the work of the authority and its possible effect on their own interests without the need to take specialist advice.
  The society still believes that the categories set out in Clause 329(5) cannot be considered to be a truly balanced list. However, it accepts and understands the Government's dislike of adding several further items. Therefore, the society offers a solution. It points out that another formula has been used in similar circumstances in previous legislation. That formula is the basis of this amendment. It is an amendment which I believe would make the coverage of subsection (5) more intelligible.
  I also refer briefly to Amendment No. 550 in the name of my noble friend. In Committee I argued strongly in support of the text of the amendment—an admirably short text of just one word. Therefore, I shall not abuse Report stage procedure by simply repeating those arguments in full. However, I bellieve that my noble friend's amendment has great merit. I am aware that the Government are sympathetic to Amendment No. 550. I hope that they will be able to give my noble friend good news today. I beg to move Amendment No. 549.
  9.30 p.m.
  Lord Teviot: My Lords, in following my noble friend, I add only that there has been an extra piece of news between Committee stage and now. In Committee I spoke at length on the amendment. I received a good response from the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and appreciated every word that he said. In a recently published report, Archive to the Millennium, by the Historical Manuscripts Commission, this amendment was specifically included and warmly supported.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I understand from what was said by the noble Baroness that her purpose in moving Amendment No. 549 is to ensure that we achieve our objective of seeing that the list of topics that may be included in the culture strategy remains exemplary and that no proper topics are excluded from the consideration. I am happy to repeat that it is our intention that in Clause 329 the list of topics is exemplary. However, we have taken legal

  123
  advice on this matter, and the advice is that that is unnecessary. I hope that the noble Baroness will not feel it necessary to press the amendment.
  As the noble Baroness knows, we have resisted additions to the list because it is already very long. However, I now propose to make one very small exception. Amendment No. 550 adds only one line and only one word. I confirm what was said by my noble friend Lord Whitty; that is, that we regard archives as an important part of the cultural life of the nation and we wish to raise the profile of archives. That is why we have included them among the strategic responsibilities and in the name of the new museums, libraries and archives council. London in particular is the home of many unique and important archive collections which play a vital role in defining the capital city's cultural identity.
  Therefore, we have listened to what was said in Committee and in another place. We have reached the conclusion that we should acknowledge the weight of sentiment expressed on this matter and include archives in the illustrative list of subjects which may be contained in the cultural strategy for London.
  I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, for tabling the amendment, and we shall accept it. The effect will be to insert archives on a new line as a separate sub-heading underneath library services. I am sure that the House will understand that we should be very reluctant indeed to make further additions to the list because that might well be interpreted, however incorrectly, as implying that the list should be seen as exclusive.
  As I said, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press Amendment No. 549.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. I am grateful that the Government took legal advice regarding Amendment No. 549. I will not press that amendment. However, I thank the Minister for his remarks about the archives. I am sure that such remarks will be heard with great pleasure, not only within but outwith this House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Teviot Lord Teviot moved Amendment No. 550:
  Page 181, line 11, at end insert—
  ("( ) archives;").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 551:
  Page 181, line 28, at end insert—
  ("( ) In this Act, references to the culture strategy include, except where the context otherwise requires, a reference to the culture strategy as revised.").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 330 [Grants by the Mayor for museums, galleries etc.]
  The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, before calling Amendment No. 551ZA, I must inform the House that if that amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 551A tabled in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Tope.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 551ZA:
  Page 181, line 29, leave out ("pay grants") and insert ("provide financial or other assistance").
  The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 551ZA I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 551A to 551C. In introducing the government amendments in this group I express my gratitude to the noble Baroness for tabling Amendment No. 551A and, indeed, to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, who made this proposal in Committee.
  The changes will extend the authority's power to pay grants to cultural institutions in London under Clause 302, permitting the authority to give assistance in a way other than financial.
  I said in Committee that we would consider the proposal. We have done so and agree that it is a useful addition to the powers of the mayor. We prefer a slightly revised wording. Our amendments, therefore, differ in that way. There are also some minor consequential amendments the effect of which will be to introduce the extended power originally sought. I beg to move.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, we thank the Minister for taking the point on board. As regards Amendment No.551 B, what is the rationale for inserting a reference to "financial assistance" rather than "financial or other assistance"? This provision deals with making a grant or financial assistance subject to conditions. It does not seem to me that other assistance should necessarily not have conditions attached to it.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Baroness is entitled to an answer. The references to financial assistance apply to grants only, in line with tourism provisions. Does that make sense to the noble Baroness?
  Baroness Hamwee: No, my Lords.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, nor it does to me. I shall write to the noble Baroness. I can assure her that there is nothing malign in the change of wording.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 551B and 551C:
  Page 181, line 31, leave out ("grant under this section may be made") and insert ("financial assistance under this section may be provided").

  125
  Page 181, line 36. leave out ("repayment of the grant") and insert ("the making of repayments in respect of the financial assistance").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 331 [Duty of the Authority to promote tourism]:
  [Amendment No. 552 not moved.]
  Clause 334 [Interpretation of this Part and exercise of Authority functions]:
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 552A:
  Page 183, line 29, leave out ("Part") and insert ("Chapter").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, these are technical amendments. We have inserted a chapter heading which does not require amendments but, having inserted it, we want to refer to the chapter rather than to the whole parts of the Bill.
  I take this opportunity of reminding the House of something that I said in Committee. We intend to provide an explicit full power for the cultural strategy group for London to act on behalf of the authority in respect of all the functions under Part X. This is a technical amendment but it will have to await Third Reading. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 553:
  Page 183, line 29, at end insert—
  (""improvement in tourism amenities and facilities" means a measured improvement in customer service;").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the Greater London Authority has a duty imposed on it by Clause 331 to,
  "encourage the provision and improvement of tourist amenities and facilities in Greater London".
  Amendment No. 553 would define "an improvement" as being a measured improvement and not one simply left to guesswork and the personal preferences of members of the authority.
  One might ask how such a measurement could be made. The London Tourist Board has already supplied the answer. During the summer the LTB published its London Customer Service Monitor (not the most attention-grabbing headline in the world) which is a fascinating read. It is a report about what the people who live and work in London really think about the service we receive in hotels, pubs, museums and transport—the whole range of services covered by this part of the Bill. An important aspect of the work being carried out by the London Tourist Board is that it is updating that research over the next eight months so that there will be a comparative picture of service standards in London building up over that time. That is the kind of work that is essential if the authority is to carry out its duty effectively to encourage improvements in services.
  Do the Government agree that that is a useful method of measurement and one that should and could be adopted by the authority, or do they have some other method in mind for proving that improvements have actually taken place? I beg to move.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am afraid I am not able to be so sympathetic to this amendment. It adopts a prescriptive and very restrictive approach to improvement in tourism amenities and facilities.
  The effect of Amendment No. 553 is to define "improvement" in tourist amenities as meaning a measured improvement in customer services. The noble Baroness asked whether we felt that was a useful definition. It is a useful definition, but if we accepted the amendment it would be the only definition; it would be exclusive. In other words, measured improvements in customer service would be the only sense in which tourism amenities and facilities could be said to have improved.
  We do not feel it is appropriate to restrict the definition of "improvement" of tourist amenities and facilities in that way. That is because it is not just tourist amenities and facilities which are under the control of our policies, but anything which is used by tourists. We cannot readily measure improvements in customer services for things which are used by tourists. Suppose, for example, we improve the pavements. Tourists use them; they are better off. But what is the measured improvement in customer service?
  In any event, as I said earlier, in developing and carrying out such duties the mayor must have regard to policies at the national level. They include the tourism strategy, Tomorrow's Tourism, which sets out the key themes for the tourism industry, including the need to develop and spread quality. Ways in which that can be achieved include the need to have a trained and motivated workforce; to provide products that suit customer needs; and to provide better information for customers. All of those initiatives lead to an improvement in customer service. Therefore we do not need a separate amendment of this kind, since improvement in customer service is included at the national level and must be taken into account by the mayor in developing his strategies. I hope I have persuaded the noble Baroness that there is no advantage in our accepting this amendment.
  9.45 p.m.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am, of course, disappointed that the Government cannot be quite "so sympathetic" towards this amendment. I understand they are arguing that it would be too restrictive. However, with regard to the Minister's remark about tourists using pavements, I believe that there are ways of measuring such improvements and not just flippantly saying that not so many people fall over. It is possible that some councils are better than others at putting in dropped curbs or studs for those who are partially sighted and those without sight. There are indeed measured improvements that one can make. I have listened to the Minister's response and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 553A:
  Page 183,1ine 38, leave out ("Part") and insert ("Chapter").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 553B:
  After Clause 334, insert the following new clause—

  TRAFALGAR SQUARE
  (" .—(1) The functions of the Secretary of State under section 2 of the Trafalgar Square Act 1844 (care, control, management and regulation of the Square and its ornaments etc) are transferred by this subsection to the Authority.
  (2) In that section, the words from "by and out of such Monies" to "by Authority of Parliament" shall cease to have effect.
  (3) The functions transferred to the Authority by subsection (1) above shall be functions of the Authority which are exercisable by the Mayor acting on behalf of the Authority.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 553C, 553D and 576NA. These amendments make provision for the transfer of day-to-day responsibility for Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square from the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to the GLA. Both squares will remain Crown land. The mayor will be responsible for the repair and maintenance of the fabric of the squares—that is to say, cleaning, lighting and structural repairs to statues—and for controlling and licensing use; for example, giving permission for rallies and events, advertising and filming on Trafalgar Square.
  Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square are public places of great historical and cultural importance to London. They both have a role in the life of the whole nation. It is appropriate that the mayor should have responsibility for them. The transfer of the squares is considered essential to the implementation of the "World Squares for All" master plan project, on which the mayor will take the lead. This is a flagship project, which demonstrates how, through careful traffic management and some pedestrianisation, we can redress the balance between vehicles and pedestrians, improve the historic environment and give these great squares back to Londoners and visitors to enjoy.
  I should like to take this opportunity to reaffirm the Government's strong commitment to the World Squares project and to seeing the proposals developed and implemented as soon as possible. Perhaps I may also add a personal note. As chairman of the GLC central area planning and transport board in the mid-1970s, when the "Three Squares" project was started—comprising Leicester Square, Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square—I was able to see through the Leicester Square part but was frustrated as regards the other two squares. Therefore, I have a particular personal interest in seeing that this project goes through.
  Given management responsibility for Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square, together with the responsibility for strategic routes including Whitehall, the mayor will be able to champion the World Squares scheme and ensure that a consistent management regime can be established through the project area.
  The Bill gives the GLA the power to make by-laws applicable to the two squares, for which the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport will be the confirming authority. These will replace the existing parks and other open places regulations. The funding currently provided by the Culture Secretary for the care and maintenance of Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square will be transferred to the GLA. The mayor will be able to seek the expert advice and assistance of English Heritage and other bodies in making arrangements for the specialised maintenance of the squares and the monuments in them.
  It is intended to lay further amendments on Third Reading to give the mayor new enforcement powers (which the Culture Secretary does not have) equivalent to those of Westminster City Council, the neighbouring local authority, to control illegal trading in the squares. This will enable the mayor to deal effectively with the longstanding and ever-increasing nuisance caused by illegal traders in Trafalgar Square and to prevent such problems arising in Parliament Square. However, anyone looking at the square in its current state will realise that there is not much scope for illegal vendors, or anything else.
  The intended further amendments will also give the Culture Secretary the power to issue guidelines to ensure the effective care, control, management and regulation of the squares. The intention is to issue guidelines initially to reflect current policy for managing in particular Parliament Square. This approach recognises the national significance of the squares and provides a policy steer without constraining the mayor's discretion to carry out his or her new responsibilities. The mayor, and any other person or body exercising the mayor's functions, will be required to take the guidelines into account when exercising any duties or powers with respect to the squares.
  It is envisaged that the mayor will make contracts and arrangements with other organisations in respect of most of these functions. For example, Metropolitan Police constables and officers of Westminster City Council could undertake policing functions in the squares, the latter specifically in relation to unlicensed traders. It is intended to lay a further amendment to ensure that it will be beyond the scope of the mayor's powers to engage private persons or organisations such as private security firms to undertake policing functions.
  However, any decisions on whether a particular march, rally, assembly or demonstration should take place in the squares are to be taken by the mayor—consulting others such as the Home Office—and not delegated to one of the other organisations I have just mentioned. The Government believe it is right to ensure that decisions affecting the longstanding tradition of public access to Trafalgar Square for demonstrations and rallies should be taken by a democratically elected authority. We intend to lay a further amendment at Third Reading to give effect to this requirement.
  The House authorities have confirmed that the inclusion of Parliament Square will not render the Bill hybrid because the transfer of responsibility relates only to Crown land and no private interest is involved. I beg to move.
  Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My Lords, these are significant new clauses transferring the management responsibility for Trafalgar and Parliament squares from the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to the Greater London Authority. As the Minister has remarked tonight, both Parliament and Trafalgar squares are of national importance, part of our national heritage and part of our being. When visitors from the rest of the UK come to London for the first time, they make a beeline for the squares and carry away with them memories and perhaps photographs that last for ever.
  The importance of Trafalgar Square was very much in our minds last week because of Trafalgar Day. Yet despite the importance of this amendment I am rather dismayed that the Government are asking the House to pass it today in its half-finished form. As the Minister said, further amendments will be laid next week at Third Reading. These amendments were laid by the Government only on Friday. I had some slight prior knowledge of the amendments thanks to the courtesy of civil servants whom I telephoned last week to find out what on earth had happened to one or two amendments that the Government had flagged up in Committee but which seemed to have died in the wings somewhere along the line between Committee in July and Report in October. I was informed that one of the two amendments might not appear today and would probably appear at Third Reading but that other amendments were waiting in the wings that were far more significant than those I was inquiring about on the telephone. The civil servants said nothing improper at all; everything was absolutely within the rules. I was relieved that the regional policy branch was up to date in its work but I was dismayed that the House was not to be made aware of everything that was going on until such a late stage.
  Last week the Minister gave me his word—which he has kept in full—that he would give a proper explanation today. Therefore I shall not discuss each and every aspect of the amendments that he is to propose next week. I shall refer to one aspect of those and to some aspects of the amendment that he has laid today. I welcome what the Minister said with regard to changes to the law which will hit those unscrupulous people who are "ripping off" tourists—there is no other way to put it—by selling hot dogs, burgers, you name it, from unlicensed trolleys that they wheel around. Suspect food is certainly being sold to unsuspecting tourists. I am sure that we on this side of the House would welcome any moves to try to prevent that continuing. Such rogue traders only give the licensed tradespeople a bad name. After all, restaurants, cafés and fast food outlets all have to follow serious regulatory regimes on hygiene issued by environment departments. These rogue traders can do pretty much
  130
  as they like and "hoof off '—I beg noble Lords' pardon; that is unparliamentary language. I should say that they make a quick exit.
  I am aware of a court case earlier this year which makes it very difficult to apprehend people selling such food on Crown land. As I understand it, the court decided that it is only the owner of the trolley—I cannot think of another word for it—who can be prosecuted, not the person selling the food. It is of course very difficult to find out who the owner is.
  Turning from what is in the amendment to what seems to be missing from it, the Minister has assured us that there will be a transfer of resources. Will that be each year, year on year, with the normal increase in spending awards, or will it be a one off payment?
  The Minister referred to demonstrations and that the responsibility for saying yea or nay as to whether a demonstration may be held will be transferred to the authority, to the mayor. Have the Government carried out any assessment of what the impact will be of this transfer of power from central government to, in effect, the GLA? He mentioned policing and other matters. Will there be any change in the way in which demonstrations are allowed, or will the rules remain the same as those which currently pertain, bearing in mind that it is always very difficult to ensure that these rules are enforced?
  In Amendment No. 553D, subsection (2) relates to penalties for contravening by-laws. Will the penalties be at the same level as is currently the case? At present, one is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale. Will the current level of penalty continue?
  Have the Government taken into account how long it takes to introduce by-laws? I have received a very helpful note from Westminster City Council on the matter. It suggests that a more effective approach would be for the Bill to provide that the management of the squares should become subject to the powers and duties of the London local authorities legislation. That would immediately and effectively solve the problem and also ensure quick action to tackle some of the current difficulties.
  These are significant amendments. I am disappointed that they have reached us at such a late stage. I look forward to seeing the amendments at Third Reading. I hope that they will make imperfect amendments slightly better.
  Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I am very unhappy with the amendments. I know that the noble Lord has a great interest in world squares. That is a good thing; I do not dissent from it. He said that Leicester Square is a success. As I understand it, it is managed by Westminster City Council.
  Going back to my day, we had to remove the pigeon droppings many times every day from Leicester Square. It is an enormous problem in Trafalgar Square. When I was chairman of the local health committee we tried giving these feral pigeons contraceptive pills. Unfortunately they did not work, as we can see, and the pigeons developed a taste for them. We then paid

  131
  someone to take all the spare pigeons out of London. That was not much use because they all flew straight back in.
  Pigeons are a great health hazard and people find them very unpleasant. There are some people who misguidedly believe that they are doing some great kindness by encouraging the birds. The only person who really wants to encourage them is the man selling the pigeon food. I was very sorry when the man who trapped the pigeons and sold them to restaurants was arrested and stopped from doing so. I thought that at least someone was doing something.
  The day-to-day management of the square is important. I can understand the noble Lord's point that there needs to be permission to hold a rally or other event in the square, but it would be very practical if the day-to-day management of Trafalgar Square—and, to a certain extent, Parliament Square—was carried out by Westminster Council. What will happen if it is hemmed in by a big walled area surrounded entirely by Westminster with only the square as the exception? The situation has always been unsatisfactory in terms of the square's management and control. Nowadays, the authorities are better able to control the sale of illegal or unpleasant food.
  Westminster has a very good licensing system. In my day the council would not issue anyone a licence—I do not know why they allowed illegal trading. The authority was absolutely opposed to licences. However, since then the system has been changed and licences are issued. Vendors must prove that they are of good character and they must meet the basic requirements. It would be much more practical for the council to deal with the problem. As I understand it, the Greater London Authority is intended to be a strategic authority rather than an operational one. If it embarks on setting up street cleaning services and other tasks—I take the noble Lord's point that such matters could be contracted—it seems to me that the process will be that much more circuitous and less efficient than if the day-to-day management was given to the local authority and all the other powers were retained by the council.
  My noble friend made an important point on by-laws; how quickly would they be produced and would they be effective? Those points are important and can be dealt with fairly quickly. However, I am concerned to learn that yet another set of amendments will be brought forward. I am not happy with the ones before us, and if yet more are added, that will concern me even more. I am not in favour of the amendment.
  10 p.m.
  Earl Bathurst: My Lords, with reference to the comments of my noble friend as regards pigeon droppings in Trafalgar Square, can the Minister confirm that if his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport will be involved,
  132
  will shooting syndicates be formed for the squares to clear up the pigeons? I should be glad if he could confirm that point.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for her welcome to the amendments. At the beginning of her speech she wondered whether they had died. It was not so much that the amendments had died, but that they were struggling towards birth. The litter—if I may describe the point in terms of animal husbandry rather than those of waste management—is not yet complete. For that reason, we shall have to bring forward further amendments at Third Reading.
  The noble Baroness asked me whether the resources to be transferred from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport will be moved on a continuing basis. The answer to that question is yes. In regard to the impact on demonstrations and rallies, the noble Baroness is right in thinking that the initial guidelines will describe the current practice for granting permission for such demonstrations. We all recognise that this is rather like Speaker's Corner. It is an essential part of our liberty in this country that there should be rallies and that there should be control of rallies only if there is real risk of public disorder. That is why the power to grant permission for rallies and demonstrations should not be given to any body other than a democratically elected authority.
  The noble Baroness also asked whether the penalties for contravening by-laws will continue in their present form. I can confirm that the answer to her question is that they will. One of the reasons for issuing guidelines to describe current practice, to which the mayor shall have regard, is that, as the noble Baroness rightly observed, it can take a long time to establish new bylaws. At the instigation of Westminster City Council, the noble Baroness asked me whether the London Local Authorities Act could be used. However, that is a local provision and thus could not apply to Crown land.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, took me back to the 1970s and the situation regarding Leicester Square. It was because of the relationship between the Greater London Council, on which she and I both served, that it was possible to manage Leicester Square by agreement between Westminster and Camden Councils. But as the noble Baroness may have noticed, there is now no Greater London Council. That is why we have to make these different arrangements.
  As to the day-to-day management of the squares, the amendments make it clear, and the Bill will make it clear, that contracting on issues such as cleaning and maintenance can and certainly will go outside. Other things being equal, it is common sense for them to go to Westminster City Council. But as some parts of the responsibility, including control of the statues, has to stay with the mayor, because these are of perhaps not strictly strategic but certainly London-wide importance and national importance—indeed, international importance—it seems better to make the transfer here and then to contract specific duties back to Westminster City Council.

  133
  The noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, referred to the continuing involvement of the DCMS. It will be in the form of the guidelines which I described. The noble Earl can speculate as he wishes as to what those guidelines will contain. I was rather amused by his example of how to deal with pigeons. None of us has succeeded anywhere else in doing it. As for pigeons, the Secretary of State will have no continuing involvement. It will be a matter for the mayor. I am sure that the Secretary of State is very pleased to have that taken out of his hands.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, does he accept that I did not agree with the amendments? The approval I was showing was for the fact that I agree that Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square are of national importance. I certainly agreed with the noble Lord's comments with regard to that. I did not in any way imply that I believed that the amendment carries out something that is necessary or welcome in itself. The noble Lord will, I hope, have taken note of the dismay that I expressed with regard to the late tabling of the amendments and to the fact that they have been tabled in a half finished form.
  Has the Minister also taken note of the concerns expressed by my noble friend Lady Gardner with regard to the fact that the House is not in a position at the moment to give proper scrutiny to the amendments because other matters are outstanding which will come forward next week? In view of those matters, will the Minister withdraw the amendment at this stage and simply bring back the amendments at a later stage on Monday when they can been seen in their complete form in the round with the other amendments to which he has already spoken today?
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the last thing I would wish to do is t o put any words into the mouth of the noble Baroness. I accept what she says about her reservations about the content of the amendments. I certainly agree with her that it would have been better if we had been able to produce all of them before that. However, these amendments are not in themselves defective. They are valuable. We made the decision that it was better to put them forward now for debate rather than to save all the amendments until the last ones were available at Third Reading. If we made the wrong decision, I can assure the House that it was made with the best of intentions—to ensure that there was as much proper debate as possible and that we gave notice of the content of the amendments which we will introduce next week. It was with the best of intentions that we took this action. In the circumstances I think it is best that we pursue these amendments now—on the basis that they are themselves complete and perfect rather than have them stillborn, if I may return to my previous metaphor.
  Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I make a final plea to him to reconsider. Many amendments to the Bill have been put down and questions have been left unanswered because the amendments came in late and we did not have the
  134
  opportunity to consider them. Nor has the Minister had the opportunity to answer questions properly. We have discussed those matters at great length. I understand that the amendments were put down on Friday and that the Government need the other amendments as part of a package—despite the Minister's comment that they are complete in themselves.
  The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, may be aware that the Under-Secretary of State and the Chief Whip discussed with the House earlier the fact that many of the amendments that should deal with people working for the GLA have not even been drawn up. So far as Third Reading on Monday is concerned, those amendments will not be ready—which probably means that Third Reading will extend to Wednesday. There is no shortage of time. We have discussed the amendments at length and it would be much better policy for the noble Lord courteously to withdraw the amendments so that we can deal with the whole issue on Third Reading.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I cannot accept that argument. I made clear in my response to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, that we sent the amendments to her and all noble Lords who had expressed an interest in this part of the Bill on Thursday—although the amendments were only put down for publication on Friday. I made it clear also that the amendments are sufficient in their own right and serve a useful purpose. I was trying to be helpful in giving as much advance notice as I could of further amendments.
  The amendments have been available for debate. Any noble Lords who wanted to question their content could have done so, yet nobody has done so within the rules of Report stage. I have answered all questions— none of which struck me as being particularly antagonistic. Under the circumstances, it would better to proceed with the amendments. They will be printed and if noble Lords have second thoughts and want to amend them, they can do that—which they could not do if the amendments are withdrawn now. We can consider the related amendments on Third Reading, without wasting additional time. I hope, on mature consideration, that that meets with the approval of members of the Opposition Front Bench.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 553C:
  After Clause 334, insert the following new clause—

  PARLIAMENT SQUARE
  (" .—(1) The land comprised in the site of the central garden of Parliament Square (which, at the passing of this Act, is vested in the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport) is by this subsection transferred to and vested in Her Majesty as part of the hereditary possessions and revenues of Her Majesty.
  (2) Nothing in subsection (1) above affects—

  (a) any sewers, cables, mains, pipes or other apparatus under that site, or

  (b) any interest which was, immediately before the passing of this Act, vested in London Regional Transport or any of its subsidiaries.

  (3) The care, control, management and regulation of the central garden of Parliament Square shall be functions of the Authority.
  (4) It shall be the duty of the Authority well and sufficiently to light, cleanse, water, pave, repair and keep in good order and condition the central garden of Parliament Square.
  (5) The functions conferred or imposed on the Authority by this section are in addition to any other functions of the Authority.
  (6) In consequence of the preceding provisions of this section, any functions of the Secretary of State under or by virtue of section 22 of the Crown Lands Act 1851 (duties and powers of management in relation to the royal parks. gardens and possessions there mentioned), so far as relating to the whole or any part of the central garden of Parliament Square, shall determine.
  (7) Subsections (3) and (4) above shall have effect notwithstanding any law, statute, custom or usage to the contrary.
  (8) Any functions conferred or imposed on the Authority by virtue of this section shall be functions of the Authority which are exercisable by the Mayor acting on behalf of the Authority.
  (9) In this section "the central garden of Parliament Square" means the site in Parliament Square on which the Minister of Works was authorised by the Parliament Square (Improvement) Act 1949 to lay out the garden referred to in that Act as "the new central garden".").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 553D:
  After Clause 334, insert the following new clause

  BYELAWS
  (" .—(1) The Authority may make such byelaws to be observed by persons using Trafalgar Square or Parliament Square Garden as the Authority considers necessary for securing the proper management of those Squares and the preservation of order and the prevention of abuses there.
  (2) A person who contravenes or fails to comply with any byelaws under this section shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale.
  (3) The functions conferred or imposed on the Authority by this section are in addition to any other functions of the Authority.
  (4) Any functions conferred or imposed on the Authority by virtue of this section shall be functions of the Authority which are exercisable by the Mayor acting on behalf of the Authority.
  (5) In this section—

  "Trafalgar Square" has the same meaning as in the Trafalgar Square Act 1844;

  "Parliament Square Garden" means the central garden of Parliament Square, within the meaning of section (Parliament Square) above.").

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendments Nos. 554 to 556 not moved.]
  10.15 p.m.
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 556ZA:
  After Clause 337, insert the following new clause—

  THE SUPERANNUATION ACT 1972: DELEGATION OF FUNCTIONS
  (".—(1) The Minister for the Civil Service may, to such extent and subject to such conditions as he thinks fit, delegate to any person the function of administering a scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972, so far as relating to employees of any of the bodies specified in section 337(1) above.
  (2) A person to whom the function of administering a scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 is delegated under subsection (1)(a) above may, to such extent and subject to such conditions as he may determine, authorise the exercise of that function by, or by employees of, any person.
  (3) Where a person is authorised under subsection (2) above to exercise the function of administering a scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972, anything done or omitted to be done by or in relation to him (or an employee of his) in. or in connection with, the exercise or purported exercise of the function shall be treated for all purposes as done or omitted to be done by the person who authorised him.
  (4) Subsection (3) above does not apply for the purposes of—

  (a) any criminal proceedings against the authorised person (or any employee of his); or

  (b) any contract between him and the person who authorised him, so far as relating to the function.").

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I will speak also to Amendments Nos. 564, 564A and 565. The first amendment makes two changes to the Superannuation Act 1972, which is the legislation governing the principal Civil Service pension scheme. The amendment provides for responsibility for the operation of the CSPS, the GLA and each of its functional bodies to be delegated to the bodies themselves or other such persons within each body as the Minister for the Civil Service deems appropriate. In addition, the amendments provide for the GLA and its associated bodies to sub-contract administration, although there is no obligation to do so.
  Noble Lords with sharp eyes may have noticed the cross-reference in sub-paragraph (2) to "subsection (1)(a)", which does not exist. That is a typographical error, for which I apologise. We checked with the House authorities, who confirmed that the meaning and intent is clear. If the amendment is passed, that error will be rectified in the next printing of the Bill.
  Amendments Nos. 564 and 565A are both technical amendments, to change references to "Corporation of London" to "Common Council". We went over that ground earlier. Amendment No. 564A adds a Minister of the Crown to the list of successor bodies in Clause 351(2) to which the property, rights and liabilities of existing bodies listed in Clause 351(3) can be transferred. The intention is that the property, rights and liabilities of the London Ecology Unit, the London Planning Advisory Committee and the London Research Centre will be transferred to the Secretary of State at their abolition, prior to transferring to the GLA on 8th May. This amendment provides the necessary powers for that to occur.
  The first of these amendments relates to pensions, and the noble Baroness mentioned that the pensions of those who work for London Underground will be transferred to the private sector as part of the public private partnership. That is a different issue to the one covered here. We have been unable to table amendments for Report and it is our intention to do so for Third Reading, which may require some adjustment to the timetable. That is a matter for the usual channels, as the noble Baroness and I have discussed. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 556A not moved.]
  Clause 342 [Provision of information, advice and assistance by functional bodies]:
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 557:
  Page 186, line 22, leave out ("subsection (2) below") and insert ("the following provisions of this section").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 558 to 563.
  Amendments Nos. 557 to 563 fulfil the Government's commitment to tidy up the mayor's power to obtain information, advice and assistance from the functional bodies. The effect is to limit the duty to supply information, advice and assistance to that which the mayor may reasonably require for exercising her or his functions. The amendments also simplify the Secretary of State's power, by order, to make appropriate arrangements to protect privacy and confidentiality. We anticipate that the arrangements will be based on Part VA of the Local Government Act 1972. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendments Nos. 558 to 563:
  Page 186, line 24, leave out ("require") and insert ("request").
  Page 186, line 24, at end insert—
  ("( ) The information, advice or assistance that may be requested under subsection (1) above is such in formation, advice or assistance as the Mayor may reasonably require for the purpose of discharging functions of the Authority which are exercisable by him.").
  Page 186, line 26, leave out ("confidential").
  Page 186, line 29, leave out paragraph (b).
  Page 186, line 31, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
  ("(c) impose further limitations on the exercise of the powers conferred on the Mayor by subsection (1) above.").
  Page 186, line 34, leave out subsection (3).
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 343 [Research and collection of information: London Research Centre etc.]:
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 563.A:
  Page 187, line 15, at end insert—
  ("(3A) The Secretary of State may make regulations requiring the Authority to make, or assist in making, arrangements whereby information falling within subsection (3B) below which is in the possession of the Authority is made available to any of the bodies and persons mentioned in subsection (3)(a) to (c) above.
  (3B) The information which falls within this subsection is—

  (a) information collected, or the result of any investigation carried out, by the Authority under subsection (1)(a) above, and

  (b) information collected, or the result of any investigation carried out, other than by the Authority which has been transferred to the Authority by virtue of an order under section 351 below or a scheme under section 352 below.").

  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment corrects a loophole that we have noticed in the provisions at Clause 343 of the Bill. The clause provides the Secretary of State with a fall-back power enabling him to instruct the GLA to make research data that it has collected available to others, in recognition of the
  138
  important role it is inheriting from the LRC. However, the current provisions do not extend to research work carried out by predecessor bodies but inherited by the GLA. The amendment makes clear that the Secretary of State's power should extend to enabling him to instruct the GLA to make available information transferred to it under the transfer provisions at Clauses 351 and 352 of the Bill. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 563B:
  After Clause 346, insert the following new clause—
  ("Overseas assistance

  OVERSEAS ASSISTANCE
  .—(1) Section 1 of the Local Government (Overseas Assistance) Act 1993 (power of local authorities to provide advice and assistance overseas) shall be amended as follows.
  (2) After subsection (6) there shall be inserted —
  "(6A) For the purposes of subsection (1) above the Greater London Authority shall be treated as having skill and experience as respects a particular matter if—

  (a) the Authority does not have skill and experience as respects that matter,

  (b) the London Development Agency does have such skill and experience, and

  (c) the Agency provides advice and assistance as respects that matter to the Authority.".

  (3) In subsection (9)(a) (authorities given power to provide assistance) after "Wales," there shall be inserted "the Greater London Authority,".").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment provides for the GLA and the LDA to be able to provide assistance under the Local Government (Overseas Assistance) Act, meeting assurances given by Ministers earlier in the passage of the Bill.
  Similar provision is not needed for TfL, which already has the power to offer such assistance under paragraph 9 of Schedule 9 to the Bill, or for the police or fire authorities, which are already covered by existing legislation. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 563C:
  After Clause 347, insert the following new clause—

  THE LONDON PENSIONS FUND AUTHORITY: FINANCE
  (" .—(1) For each financial year the London Pensions Fund Authority ("the LPFA") shall prepare—

  (a) a statement containing a draft budget for the LPFA. for that financial year and specifying the amount of any levy which the LPFA proposes to make on any class of authority in respect of that year by virtue of any levying bodies regulations; and

  (b) a statement of the LPFA's strategic plans and objectives for that financial year and the two following financial years;

  and shall submit those statements to the Mayor on or before 31st December in the preceding financial year.
  (2) If—

  (a) the Mayor gives the LPFA any comments on a statement submitted in accordance with subsection (1)(a) above, and

  (b) those comments are given on or before 31st January immediately following the submission of the statement,

  the LPFA shall have regard to the comments in setting its budget for the financial year to which the statement relates.
  (3) In this section—

  "levying bodies regulations" means regulations (at the passing of this Act, the Levying Bodies (General) Regulations 1992)—

  (a) made under section 74(2) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988; and

  (b) having effect in relation to the LPFA by reason of a levying power which the LPFA would have, apart from section 117 of that Act;

  "levying power" means a power to make a levy conferred by or under any Act other than the Local Government Finance Act 1988 (at the passing of this Act, the power conferred by article 4 of the London Government Reorganisation (Pensions etc.) Order 1989);

  "net expenditure", in relation to the LPFA, means all expenditure and costs incurred by the LPFA less receipts (if any), but excluding—

  (a) any expenditure or costs payable out of, or

  (b) any receipts which fall to be credited to,

  the superannuation fund maintained by the LPFA under regulations under section 7 of the Superannuation Act 1972.
  (4) This section has effect in relation to financial years beginning on or after 1st April 2001.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to insert a new clause to complete the framework for fulfilling the commitment in the White Paper to bring the London Pensions Fund Authority (LPFA) under the control of a democratic London-wide authority. Clause 348 already transfers to the mayor the Secretary of State's functions in relation to appointments to the board of the LPFA, remuneration of board members and the provision of annual reports and other information. This new clause gives the mayor a role in commenting each year on the budget and strategic plans drawn up by that body. I regret that some further minor and consequential amendments to Part III of the Bill will need to be introduced at Third Reading in relation to the auditing and accounts of the LPFA. I apologise for the fact that those amendments are not ready today. I ask noble Lords to accept the principal clause set out in this amendment. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 351 [Transfers of property, rights or liabilities]:
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 564 to 565:
  Page 192, line 26, leave out ("Corporation of London") and insert ("Common Council").
  Page 192, line 29, at end insert—
  ("( ) any Minister of the Crown or government department;").
  Page 192, line 35, leave out ("Corporation of London") and insert ("Common Council").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 565A:
  Page 193, line 12, at end insert—
  ("( ) To the extent that an order under subsection (1) above makes provision for or in connection with the transfer of property, rights or liabilities to the London Development Agency from—

  (a) the Urban Regeneration Agency, or

  (b) the Commission for the New Towns,

  section 38 of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 (relief from Corporation Tax) shall apply in relation to the order as if it were a transfer scheme within the meaning of that section.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 565A I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 565B, 570VA, 570WA, 570XA, 575ZA and 577AA. This group of amendments deal with the tax status of the functional bodies and are aimed at ensuring that transfers made under the Bill are tax neutral.
  Amendment No. 570XA exempts TfL, the Metropolitan Police Authority and the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority from paying income tax, corporation tax and capital gains tax. Amendments Nos. 565A and 565B make transfers from English Partnerships or the Commission for New Towns to the London Development Agency subject to appropriate relief from corporation tax under Section 38 of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998. Amendment No. 575ZA provides for tax-neutral transfers between London Transport and TfL, and during any preceding reorganisation of LT, as well as the tax-neutral establishment of arrangements under the PPP. Amendments Nos. 570VA and 570WA exempt transfers undertaken by or under the Bill from stamp duty and stamp duty reserve tax.
  This group of amendments will ensure that TfL, the Metropolitan Police Authority and the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority have the same tax regime as local authorities and retain the existing tax status of their predecessor bodies. In the case of TfL, all of the activities that it inherits from its various predecessor bodies will be put in the same tax position as prior to those changes. The changes will also ensure that transfers made as a result of the Bill will not give rise to any tax charge. Any liability to tax arising from transfers made under the Bill will reduce the resources available to the GLA and the functional bodies to provide services. The approach I have set out avoids unnecessary cost to the public purse and tax demands that would be of benefit to no one. I beg to move.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, perhaps I may ask two questions on Amendment No. 570XA. Subsection (2) refers to two sections of the different taxes Acts for the purpose of which the bodies set out will be treated as local authorities. Are there any tax provisions other than Section 519 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act and Section 271 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act from which local authorities are exempt? Are there any other exemptions for local authorities which do not apply to Transport for London, the MPA and the LFEPA?

  Secondly, TfL is treated as a local authority for the purpose of those two enactments. What happens to its subsidiaries? Do the group provisions which apply

  141
  under the taxes Act mean that subsidiaries of TfL are also exempt; or will they be treated as normal commercial companies?
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, as I understand the position in relation to subsidiary organisations, the pre-existing situation will not be altered; or in so far as it is altered it will be altered in relation to subsidiaries also. The alteration in the tax status of the Metropolitan Police Authority and the fire authority is not provided for under these clauses. The amendments provide for the two authorities to be exempt from paying tax in the same way that the Metropolitan Police were, and the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority is now. The receiver for the Metropolitan Police and the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority both fall within the ambit of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act and the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act as major precepting authorities. They therefore do not pay tax in the normal sense of local authority trading accounts.
  The subsidiaries would be subject to the normal tax arrangements on trading. But that situation is not altered by the changing status in these clauses. There is no need to change the tax status, for example, of the London Development Agency because the taxes Acts apply to that in the same way as they do to RDAs generally. It is only these two authorities for which we have to make explicit provision. Subsidiaries and everything else remain "as is".
  Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the issue of subsidiaries is difficult. I envisage developments under the Local Government Act in which best practice suggests that certain functions at present undertaken by one or other of those authorities might be better undertaken by a hived-off management buy-out of that part of the organisation which might then become a proper commercial operation. One needs a careful definition of where that boundary might lie. Can the Minister put my mind at rest so that the whole House can be satisfied that the definition is sufficiently clear and there will not be a problem with it at some point in the future?
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, I may need to take further advice on this response. However, it seems to me that the additional provisions that the Local Government Act will make to look at the option of hiving off into another body will depend somewhat on the status of the other body. If it were a limited company, for example, either partially or jointly owned between local authorities, whether in London or anywhere else, that limited company would be subject to the normal taxation regimes. Other hybrid organisations which may be at arm's length to the local authority would be subject for most purposes to corporation tax. They would clearly be VAT registered and they would therefore be subject to most tax circumstances.
  I do not think, therefore, that the situation in London would be in any sense significantly different from that of local authorities who are operating under the increased flexibility that we have to provide under the local government legislation.
  142
  The same would, of course, apply to TfL, which is not in quite the same position as other local authorities. If it hives off businesses into separate subsidiaries, it will effectively have to constitute them as separate companies, which will themselves be taxable.
  So far as concerns VAT, which is perhaps the other interest here, the Government intend to bring the GLA, the Metropolitan Police, the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority and TfL within the scope of Section 33 of the VAT Act by regulation. That would mean that those bodies would be able to recover VAT on their non-business activities in the same way as local authorities do more generally. The LDA will not be included and will not be able to recover VAT, which will result in a similar situation as far as concerns the London Development Agency to the provisions in the RDA Act for the other regional development agencies.
  I hope that that goes some way towards clarifying a complex tax position. If noble Lords have any further queries, we can no doubt cover them either tonight or in writing.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 352 [Transfer Schemes]:
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 565B:
  Page 193, line 37, at end insert—
  ("( ) To the extent that a scheme under subsection (1) or (2) above makes provision for or in connection with the transfer of property, rights or liabilities to the London Development Agency from—

  (a) the Urban Regeneration Agency, or

  (b) the Commission for the New Towns,

  section 38 of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 (relief from Corporation Tax) shall apply in relation to the scheme as if it were a transfer scheme within the meaning of that section.").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 354 [Pensions]:
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 566 and 566A:
  Page 195, line 25, at end insert—
  ("( ) the Mayor or an Assembly member,").
  Page 195, line 33, at end insert—
  ("( ) An order under subsection (1) above which makes provision by virtue of subsection (3)(b) above in relation to persons who are or have been employees of the Metropolitan Police Authority shall only be made—

  (a) after consultation with the Metropolitan Police Authority, and

  (b) with the consent of the Minister for the Civil Service.").

  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 356 [Continuity]:
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 567 to 570:
  Page 198, line 8, leave out ("done by") and insert ("made or done by or in relation to").
  Page 198, line 12, leave out ("done by") and insert ("made or done by or in relation to").
  Page 198, line 18, after ("anything") insert ("made or"). Page 198, line 20, after ("been") insert ("made or").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment 570VA:
  After Clause 356, insert the following new clause—

  STAMP DUTY AND STAMP DUTY RESERVE TAX
  (" .—(1) Neither stamp duty nor stamp duty reserve tax shall be chargeable on, or in respect of,—

  (a) a transfer instrument;

  (b) an instrument or agreement which is certified to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue by a Minister of the Crown as made in pursuance of a transfer instrument; or

  (c) an instrument or agreement which is certified to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue by a Minister of the Crown as giving effect to a preparatory reorganisation, to the extent that the instrument or agreement is so certified.

  (2) No instrument or agreement which is certified as mentioned in paragraph (b) or (c) of subsection (1) above shall be taken to be duly stamped unless—

  (a) it is stamped with the duty to which it would, but for that subsection, be liable; or

  (b) it has, in accordance with section 12 of the Stamp Act 1891, been stamped with a particular stamp denoting that it is not chargeable with any duty or that it is duly stamped.

  (3) Section 12 of the Finance Act 1895 shall not operate to require—

  (a) the delivery to the Inland Revenue of a copy of this Act, or

  (b) the payment of stamp duty under that section on any copy of this Act,

  and shall not apply in relation to any instrument on which, by virtue of subsection (1) above, stamp duty is not chargeable.
  (4) In subsection (1) above, "transfer instrument" means—

  (a) an order under section 351 or 354 above; or

  (b) a scheme under section 352 above.

  (5) In subsection (1) above "preparatory reorganisation" means the transfer of property, rights and liabilities—

  (a) from London Regional Transport to any of its subsidiaries,

  (b) from a subsidiary of London Regional Transport to London Regional Transport,

  (c) from a subsidiary of London Regional Transport to another such subsidiary, or

  (d) from a Minister of the Crown to London Regional Transport or any of its subsidiaries,

  preparatory to any provision made or to be made by or under this Act.").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 570WA:
  After Clause 356, insert the following new clause—

  STAMP DUTY: INSTRUMENTS UNDER LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT ACT 1984
  (" .—(1) Section 64 of the London Regional Transport Act 1984 (stamp duty) shall be amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (7)(a) (which, among other things, provides an exemption in relation to transfers in pursuance of a scheme made under section 9(6) in compliance with a direction of the Secretary of State under section 10)—

  (a) after "or to a transfer made in pursuance of" there shall be inserted ", or otherwise in connection with,";

  (b) after "section 9(6) of this Act" there shall be inserted "(i)"; and

  (c) after "under section 10 of this Act; or" there shall be inserted—

  "(ii) in preparation for, or in pursuance of, a PPP agreement, within the meaning of Chapter VII of Part IV of the Greater London Authority
  144
  Act 1999 or a contract falling within paragraph 6(2) of Schedule (Taxation provisions) to that Act; or".

  (3) After subsection (7) there shall be inserted—
  "(7A) Any reference in subsection (7)(a) above to a transfer includes—

  (a) a reference to an agreement for a lease or underlease; and

  (b) a reference to the grant of a lease or underlease."").

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 570XA:
  After Clause 356, insert the following new clause—

  TAXATION
  (" .—(1) The following bodies, namely—

  (a) Transport for London,

  (b) the Metropolitan Police Authority, and

  (c) the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority,

  shall each be treated as a local authority for the purposes of the enactments mentioned in subsection (2) below.
  (2) The enactments are—

  (a) section 519 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (exemption of local authorities from income and corporation taxes); and

  (b) section 271 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 (exemption of local authorities from capital gains tax).

  (3) In sections 170 to 181 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 (groups of companies) references to a company do not apply to Transport for London.
  (4) Schedule (Taxation provisions) to this Act (which makes further provision about taxation) shall have effect.").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 357 [Regulations and orders]:
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 570YA to 570A:
  Page 198, line 43, at end insert—
  ("(c) section (Organisation of probation service in Greater London)(1) above, or").
  Page 199, line 5, after ("section") insert ("(Organisation of probation service in Greater London)(1) or").
  Page 199, line 34, at end insert—
  ("Paragraph 8A of Schedule 13;").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 571 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 572 and 573:
  Page 199, line 38, at end insert—

  (" section (Limit on salaries of members of other public bodies);").
  Page 199, line 39, at end insert—
  ("section (Restriction on exercise of certain powers other than through a limited company);").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 573A:
  Page 199, leave out line 42.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 573B and 577A. In my internal note, these are grouped together under the heading "Stray consequentials". I beg the pardon of the House in having strayed myself from the normal clear structure of these amendments which noble Lords will undoubtedly have noted throughout the course of this Bill.
  Amendment No. 573A leaves out one line from the clause and is consequential to other government amendments made at Report stage, which provide for TfL to be able to make transfer schemes from a distribution of property, rights and liabilities among TfL and among TfL's subsidiaries and the potential PPP companies.
  Without these amendments, Clause 148 enabled the mayor to make such transfer schemes. The mayor's powers were, however, subject to restrictions. The mayor would not have been able, without the Secretary of State's consent, to make such transfer schemes if they would have had the effect of disposing of operational railway or tramway land or of contracting out Underground train and station operating services.
  The Secretary of State's consent under Clause 148 was to have been given by order. The text which is the subject of this amendment had the effect of making such orders subject to the negative procedure of this House by including it in the list which, in Clause 357, provided at a different point of the Bill, would be subject to negative procedure.
  As a result of amendments agreed earlier, Clause 148 has been deleted from the Bill. There is therefore no need for a reference to it in Clause 357. Hence, the first amendment deletes that reference.
  Amendment No. 573B is consequential to the amendment moved earlier, Amendment No. 465. Subsection (4) of Amendment No. 465 provides that the Secretary of State may modify by order subsections (2) and (3) of the new clause. This amendment is required to ensure that there can be parliamentary scrutiny of any such changes.
  Amendment No. 577A adds a definition of "certify" to the interpretation of the clause. It indicates that "certify" shall mean,
  "certify in writing; and related expressions shall be construed accordingly".
  I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 573B to 574:
  Page 199, line 43, at end insert—
  ("section (Restrictions on disclosure of information)(4);").
  Page 199, line 43, at end insert—
  ("section (Organisation of probation service in Greater London)(1);").
  Page 200, line 5, at end insert—
  ("paragraph 7(3) of Schedule (Transport far London transfer schemes);").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 575:
  After Clause 358, insert the following new clause—

  POWER OF MINISTERS OF THE CROWN TO MAKE REGULATIONS, ORDERS AND DIRECTIONS
  (" .—(1) Any power conferred on a Minister of the Crown by this Act to make regulations or an order or to give a direction shall cease to have effect on 1st April 2006 unless previously exercised.
  (2) If a power has ceased to have effect pursuant to subsection (1) it may at any time be revived by order made by statutory instrument laid in draft before each House of Parliament.").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I appreciate that we are near the end of the Bill, but it may be worth spending three or four minutes on this amendment. As we have indicated throughout, we believe that the Bill is far too much characterised by the controlling hand of central government. I have heard it described in the following way. We have the London boroughs and by and large they will continue to do what they do; we have central government and by and large they will continue to do what they have been doing; and then we will have the Greater London Authority, which needs a Bill several inches thick to explain what it cannot do.
  That may be putting it a little harshly, but only a little. The Bill is riddled with the opportunity for the Secretary of State to make directions. We welcome the prospect of London having its strategic government, but we would welcome it more if the hand of central government were less evident.
  The new clause provides that where the Bill confers on the Minister the power to make regulations or an order, or to give a direction, it shall cease to have effect on 1st April 2006 unless it has previously been exercised. It is not as draconian an amendment as it might appear because we have added a second limb. This provides that any such power can be revived by order made by statutory instrument laid before both Houses of Parliament.
  We proposed a similar amendment to the recent Local Government Bill in connection with the capping of local authority expenditure. One of the arguments made against us was that capping, as the regime now applies, needs the affirmative resolution of the House of Commons. The powers to which this amendment refers have no such safeguard. We appreciate that such a clause as this would be to a large extent symbolic because of the power of revival which we have included. Nevertheless, it would be a welcome symbolic move for the Government to recognise that the reserve powers which they have provided throughout the Bill to deal with—and we have used this terminology a good deal—what is "just conceivable" might be put onto a slow flame on the backburner and, we might hope, be killed off entirely—to mix my references. I beg to move.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the principle of this amendment is one with which we agreed on the Local Government Bill, when it was a Bill. It is now an Act and does not contain this clause, which is rather sad. The Bill is rather less for having a lacuna in it in that regard. I believe that this provision would be worth while in this Bill and in all probability in almost every other Bill that goes through the House. The Minister

  147
  might think that a little extreme. That said, I believe that the amendment is worth supporting. It has my support in principle, and my heart is with the noble Baroness, even if, I suspect, the Minister is going to answer in his usual, thoroughly positive way, that he cannot put up with it.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, at this hour of the night I have absolutely no idea why noble Lords opposite feel that they have to go on about this for so long.
  We have been here before. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, came preciously close to advocating that at some time in the not-too-distant future we should have another GLA Bill. I believe that there will not be many takers for that among those who have been involved with this process over the past few months.
  To be serious, the powers within this Bill are necessary, but they are in the background. The fact that they are not used does not mean that they do not have an influence on the situation. They are there in order to protect in extreme circumstances the interests of other public bodies, the London boroughs, and ultimately the London taxpayer and maybe other taxpayers from the actions of the authority and the mayor. They are not intended for the Secretary of State to interfere and to get his fingers into every aspect of the mayor's policy and the assembly's proceedings. It is a responsible and complicated balance, and one to which we have given a good deal of thought and which is different in different parts of the Bill.
  I do not feel that if we were to adopt this procedure, certainly on this Bill—I shall not address the other Bills to which the noble Lord was thinking of applying it—we should rapidly be in a situation where that balance was lost. We believe that the Secretary of State still has a residual role to ensure that the interests of London more widely are protected. We hope that none of those powers will ever have to be used in the way that the noble Baroness fears, but we need them there to ensure that the whole balance operates. I hope that the noble Baroness will not pursue this last amendment on Third Reading.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am not at all surprised by that response. We are at a point where I suspect the Government and we shall not see eye to eye. I do not intend to pursue the amendment now. I am not sure what I shall do on Third Reading. My noble friend Lord Tope asked me earlier today how long I thought it would be before we were faced with a GLA (Amendment) Bill, because, given the complexity of this Bill —as the Government know better than we do from the number of amendments which they are still considering—it is only too likely that there will be something wrong here that needs amendment. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, so as not to take noble Lords by surprise or be too much in a
  148
  rush, or in case any noble Lord wishes to raise a point, I should indicate that the amendments that I am about to call are before Schedule 27, in Schedule 27 and in Clause 361.
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 575ZA:
  Before Schedule 27, insert the following new schedule—

SCHEDULE TAXATION PROVISIONS
  PART I

    TRANSFERS FROM LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT TO TRANSPORT FOR LONDON
    Interpretation
    1. In this Part of this Schedule—

    "qualifying transfer" means a transfer of property, rights or liabilities by virtue of a transfer instrument;

    "successor" means the body to which property, rights or liabilities are transferred by virtue of a transfer instrument;

    "transfer date", in the case of any transfer, means the date on which the transfer takes effect;

    "transfer instrument" means—

    (a) an order under section 351 or 354 of this Act;

    (b) a scheme under section 352 of this Act; or

    (c) an instrument or agreement which is certified to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue by London Regional Transport as made in pursuance of such an order or scheme;

    "transferor" in relation to any qualifying transfer, means the body from which the property, rights or liabilities in question are transferred by virtue of the transfer instrument in question.

    Chargeable gains: general
    2.—(1) For the purposes of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992, where there is a qualifying transfer—

    (a) from London Regional Transport or any of its subsidiaries,

    (b) to Transport for London or any of its immediate subsidiaries,

    the transfer of the property, rights and liabilities to which it relates shall be deemed, in relation to the successor as well as the transferor, to be for a consideration such that neither a gain nor a loss accrues to the transferor.
    (2) For the purposes of this paragraph a company is an "immediate subsidiary" of Transport for London if—

    (a) it is a subsidiary of Transport for London; but

    (b) it is not a subsidiary of another company which is a subsidiary of Transport for London.

    Group transactions
    3.—(1) For the purposes of section 179 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 (company ceasing to be a member of a group) where, by virtue of a qualifying transfer from London Regional Transport or a subsidiary of London Regional Transport to Transport for London or a subsidiary of Transport for London, a company—

    (a) ceases to be a member of the same group of companies as London Regional Transport. But

    (b) becomes a member of a group of companies whose principal company ("the new principal"), whether it is the company or not, is a subsidiary of Transport for London,

    149
    the company shall not under that section be treated, in consequence of having so ceased, as at any time having sold, and immediately reacquired, any asset acquired from a company which is or has been a member of the former group.
    (2) Subject to sub-paragraph (3) below, where sub-paragraph (1) above applies, or but for subsection (2) of section 179 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 would apply, as respects any acquisition of any asset and the company that acquired the asset ceases to be a member of the same group of companies as the new principal, that section shall have effect as if—

    (a) that asset had been acquired from the body which is the new principal; and

    (b) the company had been a member of the same group of companies as that body when it was so acquired;

    and where, for the purposes of that subsection, this sub-paragraph applies as respects more than one of a number of successive acquisitions of any asset, the fact that each is to be treated as an acquisition from the same person shall be disregarded.
    (3) Where—

    (a) any asset has been acquired by any company ("the leaving company") from another company,

    (b) both of those companies cease at the same time to be members of the same group of companies as the new principal, and

    (c) those companies are associated companies both immediately before and immediately after that time and at the time of the acquisition of the asset by the leaving company,

    sub-paragraph (2) above shall not apply as respects the acquisition of the asset by the leaving company.
    (4) Expressions used in this paragraph and in section 179 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 have the same meaning in this paragraph as in that section.
    Capital allowances
    4.—(1) This paragraph applies in relation to any qualifying transfer of relevant assets—

    (a) from London Regional Transport or any of its subsidiaries.

    (b) to Transport for London or any of its subsidiaries.

    (2) In this paragraph "relevant assets", in the case of any qualifying transfer, means assets by reference to which capital allowances may be or have been made to the transferor.
    (3) Where this paragraph applies in relation to a qualifying transfer of relevant assets—

    (a) there shall be made to or on the successor in accordance with the Capital Allowances Acts all such allowances and charges as would, if the transferor had continued to carry on its trade or other activities, have fallen to be made to or en the transferor in respect of those assets; and

    (b) the amount of any such allowance or charge shall be computed on a just basis as if—

    (i) the acquisition of those assets by the transferor had been their acquisition by the successor for the purposes of the trade (if any) to be carried on by the successor on and after the transfer date;

    (ii) the successor had been carrying on its trade (if any) at the time of that acquisition; and

    (iii) everything done by or to the transferor in respect of those assets had been done by or to the successor (but so that the qualifying transfer itself, so far as it relates to any assets in use for the purpose of the trade, shall not be treated as giving rise to any such allowance or charge).

    (4) The amounts falling to he taken into account in relation to the transferor as expenditure by reference to which capital allowances may be made shall be reduced, in relation to
    150
    accounting periods beginning on or after the transfer date, by such amount as is just, taking into account the successor's entitlement to capital allowances under sub-paragraph (3) above.
    (5) The transferor's entitlement to capital allowances for its accounting period in which the transfer date falls shall be reduced by an amount which is just.
    (6) In the case of a qualifying transfer of relevant assets to Transport for London—

    (a) in consequence of subsection (1) of section (Taxation) of this Act, no allowances or charges are to be made to or on Transport for London by virtue of sub-paragraph (3) above; but

    (b) sub-paragraphs (4) and (5) above shall have effect in relation to the transferor as if paragraph (a) had been omitted from that subsection.

    (7) If any dispute arises as to the amount which is just for the purposes of sub-paragraph (3), (4) or (5) above—

    (a) the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, the transferor or the successor may refer the dispute to the Secretary of State; and

    (b) on any such reference, the amount which is just shall be such amount as the Secretary of State may determine with the approval of the Treasury.

    (8) Neither—

    (a) section 343(2) of the Taxes Act 1988 (company reconstructions without change of ownership), nor

    (b) section 77 of the Capital Allowances Act 1990 (successions to trades: connected persons),

    shall have effect by virtue of a qualifying transfer in relation to which this paragraph applies.
    (9) Except as provided by this paragraph, a qualifying transfer in relation to which this paragraph applies shall be taken for the purposes of the Capital Allowances Acts not to give rise to—

    (a) any writing down allowances under section 3 of the Capital Allowances Act 1990;

    (b) any balancing allowances or balancing charges under section 4 of that Act;

    (c) any balancing allowance under section 24(2)(b) of that Act;

    (d) any balancing charge under section 24(5) of that Act;

    (e) any qualifying expenditure being deemed to be incurred for the purposes of section 25 of that Act; or

    (f) any disposal value being deemed to be received for the purposes of section 24 of that Act.

    Preparatory transfers
    5.—(1) Paragraph 4 above shall have effect in relation to a preparatory transfer of relevant assets as it has effect in relation to a qualifying transfer in relation to which that paragraph applies.
    (2) For the purposes of this paragraph, a "preparatory transfer" is a transfer of property, rights or liabilities—

    (a) from London Regional Transport to a subsidiary of London Regional Transport,

    (b) from a subsidiary of London Regional Transport to London Regional Transport, or

    (c) from a subsidiary of London Regional Transport to another such subsidiary,

    by virtue of an instrument, or in pursuance of an agreement, which is certified to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue by London Regional Transport as made in preparation for, or in pursuance of, a qualifying transfer falling within sub-paragraph (3) below.
    (3) A qualifying transfer falls within this sub-paragraph if it is a transfer of shares in a company which—

    (a) immediately before the transfer is a subsidiary of London Regional Transport; but

    (b) as a result of the transfer becomes instead a subsidiary of Transport for London.

  PART II

    PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS
    Interpretation
    6.—(1) In this Part of this Schedule—

    "PPP scheme" means a transfer scheme made in preparation for, or in pursuance of, a PPP agreement;

    "predecessor", in relation to any relevant transfer, means the body from which the property, rights or liabilities in question are transferred by virtue of the PPP scheme in question;

    "private sector company" means a company which is not a public sector operator;

    "relevant transfer" means a transfer of any property, rights or liabilities by virtue of a PPP scheme;

    "transfer date", in the case of a relevant transfer, means the date on which the transfer takes effect;

    "transfer scheme" means a scheme made under or by virtue of section 9(6) of the London Regional Transport Act 1984;

    "transferee", in relation to a relevant transfer, means the body to which the property, rights or liabilities in question are transferred by virtue of the PPP scheme in question.

    (2) Any reference in this Part of this Schedule to a PPP agreement includes a reference to a contract—

    (a) which is not a PPP agreement, by reason of the condition in subsection (7) of section 185 of this Act remaining to be satisfied (whether or not the condition in subsection (5) of that section also remains to be satisfied); but

    (b) as respects which London Regional Transport certifies to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue—

    (i) that the contract is intended by the parties to become a PPP agreement; and

    (ii) that such one or more of the parties as may be specified in the certificate are intended to become PPP companies.

    (3) In the case of a contract falling within sub-paragraph (2) above, any reference in this Schedule to a PPP company includes a reference to any company in respect of which the certificate under paragraph (b)(ii) of that sub-paragraph is given.
    (4) Except where the context otherwise requires, expressions used in this Part of this Schedule and in Chapter VII of Part IV of this Act have the same meaning in this Part of this Schedule as they have in that Chapter.
    Revenue nature of payments under PPP agreements
    7. Any payment made by a relevant body to a company in pursuance of a PPP agreement shall be deemed for the purposes of the Corporation Tax Acts—

    (a) in the case of the relevant body, to be an expense of a revenue, rather than a capital, nature (and deductible accordingly in computing profits under Case I of Schedule D); and

    (b) in the case of the company, to be a receipt of a trade carried on by the company (and taxable accordingly under Case I of Schedule D).

    Chargeable gains: the share transfer to the private sector company
    8. For the purposes of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992, where pursuant to a PPP agreement there is a transfer of shares of a PPP company—

    (a) from London Regional Transport or any of its subsidiaries,

    (b) to a private sector company,

    the transfer shall be deemed, in relation to the private sector company as well as the transferor, to be for a consideration such that neither a gain nor a loss accrues to the transferor.
    Chargeable gains: company leaving the LRT group
    9.—(1) For the purposes of section 179 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 (company ceasing to be a member of a group) where, by virtue of a transfer of shares or an agreement to transfer shares from London Regional Transport or a subsidiary of London Regional Transport to a private sector company, a company ("the transferred company") which is or is to be a party to a PPP agreement—

    (a) ceases to be a member of the same group of companies as London Regional Transport, but

    (b) becomes a member of a group of companies ("the A group") of which the private sector company is a member (or becomes a member by virtue of the transfer or agreement to transfer the shares),

    the transferred company shall not under that section be treated, in consequence of having so ceased, as at any time having sold, and immediately reacquired, any asset acquired from a company which is or has been a member of the former group.
    (2) Subject to sub-paragraph (3) below, where sub-paragraph (1) above applies, or but for subsection (2) of section 179 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 would apply, as respects any acquisition of any asset and the company that acquired the asset ceases to be a member of the A group. that section shall have effect as if—

    (a) the asset had been acquired from the principal company of the A group; and

    (b) the company had been a member of the A group when it was so acquired;

    and where, for the purposes of that subsection, this sub-paragraph applies as respects more than one of a number of successive acquisitions of any asset, the fact that each is to be treated as an acquisition from the same person shall be disregarded.
    (3) Where—

    (a) any asset has been acquired by any company ("the leaving company") from another company.

    (b) both of those companies cease at the same time to be members of the A group. and

    (c) those companies are associated companies immediately before and immediately after that time and at the time of acquisition of the asset by the leaving company,

    sub-paragraph (2) above shall not apply as respects the acquisition of the asset by the leaving company.
    (4) Expressions used in this paragraph and in section 179 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 have the same meaning in this paragraph as in that section.
    Capital allowances: general
    10.—(1) This paragraph applies in relation to any relevant transfer—

    (a) from London Regional Transport to a subsidiary of London Regional Transport,

    (b) from a subsidiary of London Regional Transport to London Regional Transport, or

    (c) from a subsidiary of London Regional Transport to another such subsidiary,

    which is certified to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue by London Regional Transport as made in preparation for, or in pursuance of, a PPP agreement.
    (2) A PPP scheme which provides for a relevant transfer in relation to which this paragraph applies may include provision for amounts of expenditure by reference to which capital allowances may be made to the predecessor in relation to anything—

    (a) to which the transfer relates. and

    (b) which is specified, or of a description specified, for the purpose in the PPP scheme,

    to be allocated to the transferee and treated for the purposes of the Corporation Tax Acts, as respects periods beginning on or after

    153
    the transfer date, as expenditure by reference to which capital allowances may be made to the transferee instead of to the predecessor.
    (3) Where an amount of expenditure is allocated under subparagraph (2) above to the transferee then, subject to subparagraph (4) below, there shall be made to or on the transferee in accordance with the Capital Allowances Acts all such allowances and charges as would have fallen to be made to or on him had he incurred expenditure of that amount on the transfer date in the acquisition, for the purposes of a trade carried on by him, of anything falling within paragraphs (a) and (b) of sub-paragraph (2) above.
    (4) For the purposes of the Corporation Tax Acts, only such amounts (if any) as may be specified in or determined in accordance with the PPP scheme providing for a relevant transfer shall be allocated to the transferee in respect of expenditure by reference to which capital allowances may be made by virtue of sub-paragraph (3) above in relation to anything to which the transfer relates.
    (5) The allocation in accordance with sub-paragraphs (2) and (4) above of an amount of expenditure to the transferee shall affect the amounts falling to be taken into account in relation to the predecessor as expenditure by reference to which capital allowances may be made only so far as necessary to give effect to a reduction of any such amount by a sum equal to so much of that amount as is so allocated to the transferee.
    (6) If the PPP scheme in question so provides, then, notwithstanding sub-paragraph (5) above,—

    (a) the predecessor shall be entitled, for its accounting period in which the transfer date falls, to allowances, determined in accordance with the PPP scheme, in respect of the amount so allocated, but

    (b)for that purpose that amount shall be treated as reduced to the amount which bears to it the proportion which that part of the accounting period which falls before the transfer date bears to twelve months;

    and a PPP scheme which makes any such provision may also make provision for or in connection with the making of an adjustment, determined in accordance with the PPP scheme, in relation to the transferee's entitlement to allowances.
    (7) Subject to sub-paragraph (8) below, the provisions of a PPP scheme providing for the determination of any amount which for the purposes of sub-paragraphs (2) and (4) above is to be allocated, in the case of any relevant transfer, to the transferee may include provision—

    (a) for such a determination to be made by the Secretary of State in such manner as may be described in the scheme;

    (b) for any amount determined to be calculated by reference to such factors, or to the opinion of such person, as may be so described;

    (c) for or in connection with the making of any related determinations under sub-paragraph (6) above; or

    (d) for a determination under those provisions, or under subparagraph (6) above, to be capable of being modified, on one or more occasions, in such manner and in such circumstances as may be so described.

    (8) The consent of the Treasury shall be required for the making or modification of a determination of any such amount as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (7) above.
    (9) Neither section 343 of the Taxes Act 1988 (company reconstructions without change of ownership) nor section 77 of the Capital Allowances Act 1990 (successions to trades: connected persons) shall have effect by virtue of a relevant transfer in relation to which this paragraph applies.
    (10) Except as provided by this paragraph, a relevant transfer in relation to which this paragraph applies shall be taken for the purposes of the Capital Allowances Acts not to give rise to—

    (a) any balancing allowance under section 24(2)(b) of the Capital Allowances Act 1990;

    (b) any balancing charge under section 24(5) of that Act;

    154

    (c)any qualifying expenditure being deemed to be incurred for the purposes of section 25 of that Act; or

    (c) any disposal value being deemed to be received for the purposes of section 24 of that Act.

    Leases and easements
    11.—(1) This paragraph applies where by or under, or otherwise in connection with, a PPP agreement a relevant body—

    (a) enters into an agreement to grant to a company a lease of, or an easement over, land which consists of or includes the whole or any part of a relevant site; or

    (b) grants such a lease or easement to a company.

    (2) In this paragraph "relevant site" means —

    (a) an industrial building or structure, within the meaning of Part I of the Capital Allowances Act 1990; or

    (b) land which, in relation to any fixture, within the meaning of Chapter VI of Part II of that Act, is the relevant land for the purposes of that Chapter.

    (3) Where this paragraph applies, the relevant body shall be deemed for the purposes of the Corporation Tax Acts to have such an interest in the relevant site in question as is sufficient for the agreement or grant to confer an appropriate interest on the company to which the lease or easement is, or is to be, granted (and the agreement or grant shall accordingly be taken for those purposes to confer such an interest).
    (4) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (3) above, an "appropriate interest"—

    (a) in the case of a relevant site falling within sub-paragraph (2)(a) above, is such an interest in the industrial building or structure in question as is, or is capable of being, for the purposes of Part I of the Capital Allowances Act 1990 the relevant interest (within the meaning of that Part) in relation to capital expenditure incurred by the company; or

    (b) in the case of a relevant site falling within sub-paragraph (2)(b) above, is such an interest in the land in question as constitutes for the purposes of Chapter VI of Part II of the Capital Allowances Act 1990 an interest in land (within the meaning of that Chapter) by virtue of paragraph (c) or (d), as the case may be, of section 51(3) of that Act.

    (5) In this paragraph—

    (a) any reference to granting a lease or casement includes a reference to purporting to do so; and

    (b) any reference to a grant, or to a lease or easement, shall be construed accordingly.

    (6) In this paragraph "lease" includes underlease.
    Machinery and plant
    12.—(1) Nothing in—

    (a) section 51(1) of the Capital Allowances Act 1990, so far as preventing a person being entitled to an allowance in respect of machinery or plant treated as belonging to another person,

    (b) section 52(2) of that Act, or

    (c) section 60 of that Act,

    shall, by reason only of any provision made by or under a PPP agreement, affect the entitlement of any company to capital allowances in respect of capital expenditure incurred by it.
    (2) Where, in accordance with any provision made by or under a PPP agreement, any machinery or plant in respect of which a company has been entitled to allowances under Part II of the Capital Allowances Act 1990 falls to be transferred, on the expiration of the term of the PPP agreement, from the company to a relevant body, the disposal constituted by that transfer shall be deemed for the purposes of that Part to be for a nil consideration, notwithstanding section 26(1)(f) of that Act.
    Sale and leaseback
    13.—(1) Neither section 779 (limitation on tax reliefs) nor section 782 (leased assets: special cases) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 shall apply to any payment which falls to made under a PPP agreement.
    (2) Section 781 of that Act (assets leased to traders and others) shall not apply to, or by reason of, any such payment.").
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Schedule 27 [Enactments repealed]:
    Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 575A to 576NA:
    Page 346, line 45, column 3, leave out from ("(2)(d)") to end of line 50 and insert (", (3)(d) and (4).").
    Page 347, leave out lines 12 to 16.
    Page 347, line 16, at end insert—

    ("1999 c. 22.

    The Access to Justice Act 1999.

    In Schedule 10, paragraph 40.")

    Page 347, line 20, at end insert—

    ("10 & 11 Eliz. 2 c. 46.

    The Transport Act 1962.

    Section 67(2A).

    Section 67(15)(b).

    In section 67(16), the words "and London Regional Transport".")

    Page 347, line 30, at end insert—

  PART IIA

    THE TRANSPORT USERS' COMMITTEE
    Chapter

    Short title

    Extent of repeal

    1974 c. 7.

    The Local Government Act 1974.

    In section 25(1), the word "and" preceding paragraph (d).

    Page 348, line 24, at end insert—

    ("1980 c. 66.

    The Highways Act 1980.

    Section 90E(3).")

    Page 348, line 38, column 3, at end insert—

    ("In section 73(1), the words "in their area".")

    Page 350, line 21, at end insert—

    ("50 & 51 Vict. c. 45.

    The Metropolitan Police Act 1887.

    The Whole Act.")

    Page 350, column 3, leave out line 24 and insert—

    ("The whole Act.")

    Page 350, column 3, leave out line 45 and insert—

    ("In section 4(2), the words ", or of the metropolitan police force,".")

    Page 350, line 52, at end insert—

    ("1968 c. 27.

    The Firearms Act 1968.

    In section 57(4), paragraph (b) and the word "or" immediately preceding it.")

    Page 351, line 10, column 3, leave out ("entry") and insert ("entries").
    Page 351, line 10, column 3, at end insert—

    ("offices of Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, officer or servant employed under the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis or the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District, and")

    Page 351, line 15, column 3, leave out ("entry") and insert ("entries").
    Page 351, line 15, column 3, at end insert—

    ("offices of Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, officer or servant employed under the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis or the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District, and")

    Page 351, line 28, at end insert—

    ("1982 c. 36.

    The Aviation Security Act 1982.

    Section 26(4). In section 29(2)(a), the words from "(or," to "metropolis)". Section 29(3). In section 30(3)(c), the words from "or, if that area is the metropolitan" onwards. In section 31(1), the definition of "members of the metropolitan civil staffs".")

    Page 351, column 3, leave out line 35 and insert—

    ("In section 97, in subsection (1), the words "employed outside the metropolitan police district" and subsection (4).")

    Page 352, leave out lines 6 to 8.
    Page 353. line 17, column 3, at end insert—

    ("In Schedule 1, paragraphs 5, 8(4) and 10(4).

    In Schedule 3, paragraph 1(6)(b) and the word "or" preceding it.

    In Schedule 5, paragraph 1(6)(b) and the word "or" preceding it.")

    Page 354, line 21, at end insert—

    ("1844 c. 60.

    The Trafalgar Square Act 1844.

    In section 2, the words from "by and out of such Monies" to "by Authority of Parliament".")

    On Question, amendments agreed to.
    Clause 361 [Interpretation]:
    Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 576P to 577C:
    Page 200, line 26, at end insert (", unless the context otherwise requires,").
    Page 200, line 27, at end insert—

    (""advisory committee" and "advisory sub-committee", in relation to the Assembly, shall be construed in accordance with section (Assembly committees and subcommittees)(4) and (5) above;").

    Page 200, line 29, a: end insert—

    (""certify" means certify in writing; and related expressions shall be construed accordingly;").

    158
    Page 200, line 31, at end insert—

    (""company" means any body corporate).

    Page 201, line 1, at end insert—

    (""GLA road" has the same meaning as in the Highways Act 1980 (see sections 329(1) and 14D(1) of that Act);").

    Page 201, line 1, 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, amendments agreed to.
    [Amendment No. 577D not moved.]
    Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 578 and 579:
    Page 201, line 18, at end insert—

    (""ordinary committee" and "ordinary sub-committee", in relation to the Assembly, shall be construed in accordance with section (Assembly committees and subcommittees)(1) above;").

    Page 201, line 43, leave out ("by the Assembly in consultation with the Mayor") and insert ("under and in accordance with section (Standing orders of the Authority) above").
    On Question, amendments agreed to.
    Clause 362 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
    Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 580 and 581:
    Page 202, line 30, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (8) below,").
    Page 202, line 30, at end insert—
    ("(8) Any amendment or repeal made by this Act shall have the same extent as the enactment to which it relates.").
    On Question, amendments agreed to.
    House adjourned at fourteen minutes before eleven o'clock.