HL Deb 25 October 1999 vol 606 cc117-27

(" .—(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 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 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". 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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 moved Amendment No. 550: Page 181, line 11, at end insert— ("( ) archives;").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

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 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 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"). 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 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 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 moved Amendment No. 553A: Page 183,1ine 38, leave out ("Part") and insert ("Chapter").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 553B: After Clause 334, insert the following new clause—