Sitting of 12 October 1999

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Ampthill) on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chichester.

Lord Carlile of Berriew
Alexander Charles Carlile, QC, having been created Baron Carlile of Berriew, of Berriew in the County of Powys, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Hooson and the Lord Geraint.

Lord Oxburgh
Sir Ernest Ronald Oxburgh, Knight, having been created Baron Oxburgh, of Liverpool in the County of Merseyside, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Flowers and the Lord Porter of Luddenham.
Earl Cathcart Earl Cathcart—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
Lord Penrhyn Lord Penrhyn—Took the Oath.

Directors' Remuneration: DTI Consultative Document
2.50 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect to introduce proposals to change company law following consultation on the Department of Trade and Industry consultation document Directors' Remuneration.
The Minister for Science, Department of Trade and Industry, (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, the Department of Trade and Industry issued a consultative document on directors' remuneration on 30th July, which set out the Government's proposals for strengthening the current regulatory and best practice frameworks in this area. The consultation period ends on 29th October. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has made clear, we regard this as a key issue, and we will consider implementation of the proposals in the light of the results of the consultation.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I congratulate the Government on producing the consultative document. However, does my noble friend recall that it has taken the work of three major committees and four years to reach the present stage? Is he aware that there is widespread support for at least some of the proposals contained in the document and
202
a need for urgent implementation of some of them? Will my noble friend be rather more specific about the implementation of legislation? I realise that it is not his responsibility, but perhaps he will say what priority his department places on the matter.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as I have made clear, the Secretary of State regards this as a key issue and, furthermore, he is determined to tackle it without waiting for the major review of company law which is taking place. We have set out the proposals clearly in the document. Depending on which ones we select, they will require different combinations of primary and secondary legislation or best practice. When we have decided on those proposals, we shall move forward with the appropriate measures.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, does the Minister recollect the statement by Margaret Beckett, when she was the first of the three Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry, that unless the corporate sector did something voluntarily to curb excesses in directors' remuneration the Government would intervene? Does that remain the Government's policy?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I recall the statement. It remains our policy, but we shall take the required action on the basis of the proposals that we believe to be right following consultation. If legislation is required, we shall take legislative action.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, is it not the case that the remuneration of directors should be left to companies and that the Government should not interfere—just as I presume they have no intention of interfering in regard to the extraordinarily high salaries that are paid to people such as footballers and pop stars?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, while it is true that many footballers are paid very well, as a whole they do not set their own salaries. It is an important point. Also, even in the case of someone such as David Beckham, there is a rather clear link between performance and payment. The Government have said that it is not the responsibility of government to determine or say what directors' salaries should be. But it is the responsibility of government to set out clearly the framework in which shareholders can responsibly exercise their rights in that connection.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister indicate whether, since the Greenbury Committee Report in 1995, matters have got better or worse, in terms of there being remuneration committees and proper procedures for independent directors to determine remuneration? Are they better or worse?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, there has been some progress in setting up remuneration committees, and some other steps have been taken in terms of making them independent. Nevertheless,

203
progress has not been as quick as it should have been. The Department of Trade and Industry commissioned PricewaterhouseCoopers in May 1999 to monitor compliance. It found, for example, that, for the financial year December 1998–99, only seven out of 270 quoted companies put the remuneration report forward for shareholder approval. So while progress has been made, there is still some considerable way to go.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will deal with the final point that I made. I acknowledged that it is not the task of his department to arrange legislative business. However, I asked what priority his department, or indeed he himself, places on the matter. For many people, for a Labour Government to tolerate some of the obscene payments that have been made when there is still so much poverty in the country takes some believing.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the Government believe that this is a key issue. As soon as we have decided which of the proposals in the document are the right ones, we shall move forward with the utmost priority. But we cannot say how we shall handle the matter until we have decided on those proposals.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, can we be told who are the shareholders in the BBC when it comes to settling salaries?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we are dealing with the question of quoted companies. Clearly, there are many other bodies in this country which have different arrangements for settling salaries, including those of Members of both Houses.

The Countryside: Policy
2.56 p.m.
Lord Patten Lord Patten asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are their policies to promote a better understanding by the urban majority of the minority of people who live in the countryside.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, while recognising acute problems in some of our rural areas, the Government do not rigidly and artificially divide the people of this country into urban and rural. People move between town and country or live in one and work in another. Our policies are designed to benefit all our people wherever they live. Increased mobility, domestic tourism, the mass media, and our programmes to improve education will all promote a better understanding of society by people in both town and country.
Lord Patten: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, it does not clearly demonstrate that
204
the Government appreciate the growing gulf—and it is not merely a matter of field sports—between people who live in the town, the overwhelming majority, and folk who live in the countryside. Will the Minister recognise that many country people fear that the Government's plans for the countryside will turn it into a theme park for urban people, and will not help to preserve the rural way of life, agriculture and all historic countryside pursuits? If those pursuits were threatened in other parts of the world, I daresay that the Government would be up in arms in protest. What are the Government's plans for the one democratic institution to which some country people feel they can genuinely relate; namely, the parish council? Is it, or is it not, the Government's intention to abolish parish councils in England, Wales and Scotland?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, on the last point, not. The Government have been discussing rural governance. However, the implications in the media last week that we have plans for abolishing parish councils are complete nonsense. I should like to place that on record. As regards the first part of the noble Lord's question, I do not recognise a substantial amount of it. I understand that a certain amount of feeling has been generated and to an extent irresponsibly fanned up regarding this Government and the countryside. We have done more for rural England than any previous government in terms of rural transport and help for agriculture and rural businesses. Any objective assessment of what we have done for rural areas can lead only to the conclusion that we care just as much for our rural population as we do for the population in our towns.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, as regards help for rural businesses, will the noble Lord explain the Government's policy towards small and medium-sized abattoirs, dairy farmers, indeed any farmers, when all these people find their businesses collapsing left, right and centre—and not only the farmers directly but all those who support them?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, this Government and my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture have recognised that there are serious problems within the agricultural sector. Some were brought about by the BSE crisis and its knock-on effects, for which responsibility lies elsewhere than with the present administration. Some of them relate to the international situation. The Government have recognised the problems, particularly of small farmers, and have done much to provide additional income. We recognise that in rural areas, far beyond the numbers employed, agriculture is an important sector. We are seized of the problems and have done our best, in difficult international circumstances and following upon the effects of BSE, to try to support the agriculture industry. I wish that that were widely recognised in the House.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I recognise that, as my noble friend suggested, the present Government provide a high priority for rural areas. Would he care

205
to remind the House that, in the 20 years before this Government were elected, we saw large numbers of village schools and village shops closed and many threats to village post offices? We saw the denudation of public transport in rural areas and a dramatic reduction in the number or proportion of rented houses in rural areas which compelled many poor people from the villages of Britain to move to the towns.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, my noble friend effectively reminds the House of that position. I underline that this Government have taken steps to reverse the trends.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Darner: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is a problem with the different government departments? Does he think that the creation of a rural ministry will mean that other departments, such as the DTI and the Treasury, will have a more substantial understanding of rural issues than has been evident through the past several years? Some of those failings were pointed out by the noble Countess, Lady Mar.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I believe that in the area of rural policy my department and the Ministry of Agriculture, with other departments, have established a better degree of joined-up government than has been the case in the past. As for the structure of government departments, I am advised that that is a matter for the Prime Minister.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, following the Minister's comment to the noble Countess, Lady Mar, perhaps I may agree with him that this Government have given extra help to farmers, for which they are grateful. However, it is a matter of publicising it. Of the £150 million recently allocated, only £1 million goes to farmers. The remaining £149 million goes in paying charges introduced by this Government, accompanied by all the other red tape and extra restrictions with which farmers have to comply.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not completely recognise the figures, but it is true that some of the extra help offsets charges which were in the pipeline. Nevertheless, £150 million of additional help has recently been given, particularly to beef and sheep farmers. I believe it is widely recognised within agriculture that that is a step in the right direction.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he agrees that, if a better understanding is to be fostered, it is assuredly not by a policy of overt-attrition to the interests of the countryside, not only the economic and agricultural interests but also the sporting interests?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Lord is leading us into a whole new minefield. We are concerned about the whole range of interests of country people, their employment, quality of life, transport systems and the
206
prosperity of their businesses. I do not believe that the issue of field sports, for example, is central to the concerns of many country people. It is one on which a few people have over-excited views, but not one that defines the problems of the countryside. We believe that our policies will provide jobs, prosperity and a better infrastructure for what have often been neglected parts of our country.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if the Government are unable to do much to prevent the gulf increasing between the urban and the rural sectors, can the Minister do something to make it decrease? Does he agree that one way of achieving that would be for the Government not to undertake the alteration of rural pursuits? I am not a participant in them, but any such alteration is likely to cause 16,000 people to become unemployed. Contrary to what the noble Lord said, those pursuits remain a substantial factor in the countryside.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I accept neither the figures nor the assertion. We were committed by our manifesto to a free vote on hunting with hounds. That will be pursued as parliamentary time permits. It is not a matter which the majority of people in the countryside see as central to their interests. I repeat that our concern is with jobs and prosperity in the countryside, not one particular small section.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, every word that the Minister has said so far has been entirely on agriculture, particularly BSE. That is understandable, but will he remember that those in horticulture are also having a rough time? They are often forgotten and do not share in any government goodies that may be thrown from the noble Lord's table.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I accept that horticulture and many other rural industries face problems. I recognise the importance of the horticulture sector and hope that our measures and those of my colleagues to help small firms, particularly in rural areas, will address some of the problems.

Disability Rights Commission
3.6 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made on the establishment of the disability rights commission and on the appointment of a chairperson.
Lord Bach: My Lords, we are determined that the commission should be up and running in April 2000. I am delighted to be able to inform the House that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is announcing today that Mr Bert Massie has been appointed chair. Currently he is the director of the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation, known as RADAR. As the House will know well, Mr

207
Massie is a widely respected figure and I believe he will make an excellent chair. Now that he has been appointed, key decisions about the commission's establishment can be made.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I am delighted to hear of the appointment of Mr Bert Massie? He will do an excellent job, as he always has done with RADAR.
Is my noble friend aware that the establishment of the disability rights commission by this Government is a major step forward for disabled people? While within its remit there is provision for it to try to persuade employers and service providers to comply with the law, does the Minister agree that in any cases where there is wilful and persistent discrimination against disabled people the commission should use all the powers at its disposal, including recourse to the law?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his remarks about the new chair, or chairman.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Bach: My Lords, Mr Massie is a widely respected figure in the business world and with organisations working both for and with disabled people. His personal standing and political skills have achieved much on behalf of disabled people. The post demands a highly committed individual with strong skills in strategic leadership and a good understanding of disability issues. He is an excellent communicator and will work effectively with a wide range of external players, while bringing sound judgment to bear in a sensitive environment.
As to the second part of the Question, of course the commission will look into the matters that he raises. Once the commission is set up and running it will undoubtedly have recourse to law if there is seen to be discrimination.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I start by joining in the approval of the appointment which has just been announced. Does the Minister agree that congratulations are due to the chairman and members of the present National Disability Council? It was established expeditiously under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and has been functioning most effectively in the mean time and continues to do so.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's comments about Mr Massie and I agree with him, of course, about the role that the chairman and vice-chairman of the body to which he refers have played since the passing of the Act in 1995.
208
The House will recognise that the Bill which became an Act in July, with unanimous support from this House, is probably an improvement on the 1995 Act. The setting up of the commission will, we all hope, help disabled people a great deal.
Lord Rix: My Lords, as the president of Mencap I would also like to welcome the appointment of Bert Massie as the chairman of the commission.
Can the Minister say whether or not a person with a learning disability, with suitable advocacy support, will also become a member of that commission, as has been indicated in the past?
Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Lord will recall that the Act itself requires that more than half of the commissioners are disabled people or people who have a disability. Of course we recognise the value of direct personal experience of disability.
Much can be expected of a commission of 10 to 15 people, but they could never between them have personal experience of every type of disability. What is important is that collectively they represent the interests of all disabled people and the commission's other key stakeholders, such as employers and service providers.
Having said that, I am happy to tell the noble Lord, with his, if I may say so, distinguished record in this field, that candidates short-listed for interview for commissioner posts include a number of people with learning disabilities.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, first of all perhaps I may congratulate the noble Lord on the way in which he is answering this Question, welcome him to the Dispatch Box and say how much we look forward to hearing more from him in the future. I also welcome the fact that he quickly corrected himself and did not use the awful, ugly word "chair" but the more acceptable form, "chairman".
Will the noble Lord tell the House when the commission is expected to be fully up and running?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the compliment from the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I am told that such compliments do not come frequently, so I will value it for a short period of time.
I will pass over the use of the words "chair" or "chairman" until a future occasion.
The commission will be up and running by April 2000. That is not to say that every service which it will provide will be provided by April 2000. By that month the following will be done by the commission: the provision of advice to those making inquiries; the handling of casework; policy work; and handling the media.
Lord Addington: My Lords, while I congratulate the noble Lord on the appointment of Bert Massie to this post, will the Government assure us that the new

209
commission and its chairman will be fully consulted in the implementation of the Disability Rights Task Force recommendations?
Lord Bach: My Lords, Mr Massie has been a member of that task force, as the noble Lord will know. Now that he is in post it will be much easier to get on with what has to be done. Mr Massie will obviously play an important part in the consideration of the views of the task force which, as I understand it, are to be known by November of this year.
Baroness Uddin: My Lords, will my noble friend assure the House that, given the establishment of the disability rights commission, it will take on board the broader implications of the Lawrence report?
Lord Bach: My Lords, in answer to my noble friend, we are aware of the recommendations, which of course apply to the department, and are looking at them very seriously.
I find it hard to believe that the commission, when it is set up, will not look very carefully at the serious recommendations that were made in the Lawrence report.

Sudan: Peace Process
3.15 p.m.
Lord McNair Lord McNair asked Her Majesty's Government:
What they have done in the past six months to take forward the internal or external peace process in Sudan, and what is the current state of Sudanese-British relations following the recent meeting between the two Foreign Ministers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, may I take a moment of your Lordships' time. Yesterday I was so overtaken by my new position that I failed to thank noble Lords for the warmth of my welcome. I feel equally in need of it today.
To answer the noble Lord's Question, I hope that your Lordships will be pleased to know that we have worked hard to revitalise the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) peace process, pledging funds to establish a secretariat that can maintain negotiation between the two sides. We have encouraged all parties to work alongside IGAD and we have pressed, successfully, for the resumption of a critical dialogue between the EU and Sudan.
My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and his Sudanese counterpart, Mustafa Osman Ismail, agreed to rename ambassadors in New York on 23rd September. Our embassy will soon be in a position to be more effective in our efforts in helping to achieve peace for all the Sudanese.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that very encouraging reply. Would she
210
agree that the main sticking point to resuming meaningful negotiations under the IGAD umbrella is Mr Garang and the SPLA?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I cannot agree that. The issues are very widespread, as the noble Lord will know. There are rights on both sides of the argument, as it is seen by the participants, not necessarily by others. It is incumbent upon all those who genuinely want to see peace in this region to exhort those involved to follow the IGAD process in relation to negotiation.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, while congratulating the Government on their contribution to strengthening the IGAD peace process, may I ask the Minister if she is aware that the National Islamic Front regime has repeatedly broken the ceasefire, bombing hospitals and feeding centres; dropping bombs which have caused symptoms consistent with poisoning by the arsenical compound Lewisite, and that craters caused by those bombs contain liquid and are entirely different from craters caused by conventional weapons—as these photographs, which I will place in your Lordships' Library, show?
I have written to the Minister about this and I would appreciate it if the Minister could give an assurance this afternoon that the Government will support a full investigation into the possible use of chemical weapons by the NIF regime.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, your Lordships will know that as far back as 25th May this year Her Majesty's Government pressed for the Sudanese Government to sign the Chemical Weapons Convention, which they did on that date. That now allows requested investigations through the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. That is the vehicle which will undoubtedly have to be used for this purpose.
In further answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, we are aware that bombs were dropped on villages on Friday 23rd July, but those matters too will be dealt with under the aegis of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.
The Lord Bishop of Bradford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Sudanese Government are currently seeking to evict the Episcopal Church from their long-standing headquarters at the diocese of Khartoum at Omdurman, and that, while public assurances have been given that this will not take place, the promised legal documents have not been forthcoming—at least at 10 a.m. today—and the eviction date is Saturday of this week?
Is she also aware that two Roman Catholic priests have been under arrest for quite a long time, under charges of terrorism?
Would she agree that this situation is extremely unfortunate, at a time when efforts are being made to improve relations, and will she speedily make contact

211
with the Sudanese Government to seek to resolve the matter, especially bearing in mind the eviction date of Saturday?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the British Embassy in Khartoum has kept in close contact with all the churches and has taken up concerns such as the matters referred to by the right reverend Prelate. These issues have been raised with the leader of the National Islamic Front and others. We are aware that all religions are suffering in this area. This is a matter of deep concern that we shall continue to highlight and it demonstrates the importance of the IGAD peace process. We enjoin all those concerned—the Church has been very helpful in this regard—to join forces with Her Majesty's Government to ensure that the peace efforts are successful.

Greater London Authority Bill
3.20 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Whitty.)
Lord Henley: My Lords, I rise to complain about the handling of the Report stage of this very important piece of legislation. I have given the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip notice of my intention to do so. This House is the main revising Chamber of Parliament and has a very important function under our constitution. It is entitled to be treated with respect. Government departments have a duty to assist this House in performing its revising function properly. I hope that no government will ever expect this Chamber to be a mere rubber stamp that endorses government Bills with little discussion and less notice. I do not believe that that is necessarily the intention of noble Lords opposite. However, the way that this House has been treated in recent days is not a good sign.
Yesterday, the House considered the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill. We had some 170 late government amendments to a Bill which it had been agreed would be given two days on Report. As a result, as I and the Government Chief Whip will be aware, we sat until 2.30 this morning. Given the large number of (dare I say) older Members on both sides of the House involved in that Bill, that was most unsatisfactory. Today, we have received of the order of 300 late amendments to the Greater London Authority Bill. My colleagues on the Front Bench did not see those amendments until last Friday. I understand that four more amendments have been tabled today, and there are rumours that up to 200 further amendments to the Bill will be tabled during the course of Report stage.
The House went into recess in July. Since then, over nine weeks have elapsed before this mass of amendments has poured onto our heads. I must ask: why did so long a time elapse? Why were at least some
212
of the amendments not published somewhat earlier? Will there be any more government amendments to these and other Bills coming before the House at Report stage? If so, how many, and when will they be made available to the House and my colleagues on the Front Bench? Who took the decision that this House should be treated in this way? Was the Government Chief Whip warned or consulted on the matter; if not, why not? I very much hope that the noble Lord will communicate these points to the respective Secretaries of State and Permanent Secretaries in the departments concerned. I believe that both Ministers and officials should be made fully aware that Parliament and this House do not take kindly to being treated in this way. In making these particular points I am sure that I speak for all Members of this House with an interest in these important Bills.
The Greater London Authority Bill was some eight days in Committee. None of those days was a full day in that we were interrupted by Statements. My noble friends on the Front Bench co-operated as far as they could in ensuring that the Committee stage was completed before we rose in the summer, as the Government wished. I believe that it is right to ask whether it is reasonable to expect the House to sit quite so late on Report to consider a host of very late government amendments to meet a timetable which was accepted in good faith without knowledge of the weight of this business. I make that point particularly in light of the fact that the Bill was virtually rewritten in the Commons before it came here. The noble Lord put that point to me as an argument for having a shorter Committee stage than that which occurred.
I hope that the Government Chief Whip will not close his mind absolutely to giving the House sufficient time to consider this important Bill, and others, and the issues raised by them and to enabling us to do so with reasonable notice of all the amendments. I hope also that we shall debate them at a reasonable hour, not at 2.30 in the morning. There are limits to how long this House is prepared to sit, particularly when the extra time that we are being asked to sit is the result of the Government's incompetence in this matter.
As the noble Lord will be aware, we have in the past, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor put it, insisted on downing tools at a late hour. We hope that we shall not have to insist on downing tools in future and that the Government Chief Whip will make a conciliatory reply which will at least allow us to respond and consider these Bills in the appropriate manner and with the appropriate amount of time.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Henley, has said, just as I had great sympathy with the then Labour opposition, who made precisely the same complaints when the previous government were in office. The fact is that we do not handle the business of this House in a competent fashion. We had a report of a committee chaired by Lord Rippon of Hexham which made recommendations in the lifetime of the previous government. Unhappily, many of those recommendations have not been implemented. Lord

213
Rippon made the point that it was for the House to determine the number of hours that it sat but that, by and large, it should not regularly sit after 10 o'clock at night.
As the noble Lord who has just spoken pointed out, we sat. until 2.30 this morning. That is not a sensible way to conduct our business. I very much hope that the Government Chief Whip will return to this matter in the Procedure Committee in the next Session of Parliament so that we can review the recommendations of Lord Rippon of Hexham and his colleagues and avoid complaints of this kind. It is wholly unreasonable for the House to sit as long as it is now regularly sitting. I hope that the complaints made this afternoon will be taken very seriously by the Government, as I am sure they will be.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for giving me notice of his intention to raise this matter today. I accept that this will be a very busy spillover, and there is a lot of work still to do. In that respect, it is no different from any other spillover; it is always a very busy time of year. I always try to be conciliatory, as the noble Lord, Lord Henley, is aware. As for the GLA Bill, the Government listened carefully to points made by the Opposition and others in Committee and have responded positively with amendments to deal with 80 per cent of the issues raised. It is a little strange. I understand the point that the noble Lord makes, but we have had to take time to make concessions on matters such as equal opportunities, consultation with the disabled on transport, and a new appeals process for bus licensing.
Notwithstanding the fact that many of these amendments relate to such concessions, we have been at pains to send advance copies of draft amendments and explanatory notes to opposition spokesmen. Most, but not all, of the amendments were tabled at least a week in advance. Meetings were organised last week in which my noble friend Lord Whitty discussed the remaining stages of the Bill with the Opposition and of her noble Lords. I know that he is willing to hold further meetings if that would assist.
No new areas of policy are being raised for the first time at Report. We would have expected the Opposition to be pleased that the Government had made a substantial number of concessions in this very important Bill. It is true that the GLA Bill will go back to the House of Commons with a large number of amendments in it, but the House of Lords is a revising Chamber; its role is to improve legislation where possible and to amend it where necessary.
Without speaking in any partisan sense, we became used to very large numbers of amendments being tabled by the previous government on a whole variety of Bills. Only this morning I was given a graphic description of the telephone directory of amendments tabled on the Financial Services Bill. The suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, about the Procedure Committee again considering the Rippon report in the new Session is a good one. This
214
is a problem for all governments, and I shall put with some force to the departments involved the points made by the Opposition Chief Whip.
As to the GLA Bill currently before the House, most of the amendments that the House is being asked to consider are technical or relate to concessions by the Government. As to the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill, I understand that there will be 60 fewer amendments than the 260 that the previous government tabled at the same stage to their Pensions Bill in 1995. I do not want to go backwards and forwards on the number of amendments tabled at different stages.
As regards the point about the amendments that were tabled on Monday for consideration today, I think there were only four and they were all technical. I suppose a little more time could have been found if we had sat last week but, in the spirit of good will, I try to avoid sitting the week of the Conservative Party Conference so that Conservative Peers can fully enjoy their week in Blackpool.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, was not prepared to be slightly more conciliatory. As he will be aware, we were quite prepared to sit into August and it was the Government themselves who resisted such a move. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, boasts that many of the amendments were available last week, but can he confirm that my noble friend Lady Miller, who is leading for us on much of this Bill, was able to see those amendments only on Friday? As I am sure the Government expected her to be, she was in Blackpool earlier in the week.
I imagine that a certain number of Ministers and officials were in their offices for part of August and September. Nine weeks have elapsed since we completed the Committee stage of this Bill. It is simply not satisfactory to bring the amendments to us at this stage and then still have further amendments to bring forward. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, confirmed that four more amendments, which he described as merely technical amendments, were laid today. We do not have the resources of the Government to establish whether they are technical. It takes quite a long time to get to grips with these amendments.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, is not prepared to be slightly more conciliatory in this matter. As I stressed, we sat—because we are a very co-operative Opposition—until 2.30 this morning to assist the Government in getting their business through on the Welfare Reform Bill. However, this Bill, the London Bill, which has had fewer than eight days in Committee, is the biggest Bill that has ever been before this House. It is bigger than the Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland Bills put together, and it is likely that four days will not be adequate for its proper consideration at Report stage. We, as an Opposition, reserve our right to consider how to deal with this matter later if the noble Lord, Lord Carter, is not prepared to offer more time.

215
As I said earlier, we have in the past insisted on our right, as the the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said, to "down tools", and we might have to insist on that right again in the future.
Lord Carter: My Lords, as regards the point about August, as the noble Lord, Lord Henley, knows, we agreed that if we could finish all Committee stages before the Recess, we would then rise. We did finish all the Committee stages by the end of July and that is why we did not sit into August.
As regards the amount of time required, that is a matter for the usual channels, as the noble Lord, Lord Henley, knows. We meet each other, and I also meet the noble Lord, Lord Harris, every week. That is the time to discuss the problem. I do not like sitting until 2.30 in the morning any more than the noble Lord, Lord Henley. He, I and our Whips are the people who are here with the Ministers. We are as keen as anybody not to sit late. We do have a problem. This is a very large Bill. We have made a large number of concessions. Because of the size of the Bill and the concessions we have made, there have to be a large number of amendments. I am entirely willing to talk to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris, to see if we can organise things a little better. The spillover is always heavy. This is not the first time and this is not the first Government to have a Bill before the House in the spillover with a large number of amendments presented a little later than we would all like.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Report received.
Clause 2 [Membership of the Authority and the Assembly]:
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 15, after ("London;") insert ("and the Deputy Mayor, who will exercise the executive power of the Authority")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I would like to speak to the group of amendments which start with Amendment No. 1 and go on to Amendment No. 159 on the Marshalled List. Not consecutively, I hasten to say; only to the amendments in the grouping.
As I said in Committee when I moved almost identical amendments, it really is not as formidable a number as it might appear because all of the amendments relate to one key point: that the deputy mayor should be elected and not merely nominated by the mayor and plucked out of the ranks of the assemblymen. Other amendments in this group are consequential or rectify the omission of reference to the deputy mayor where it would have been appropriate.
I shall deal with the principal amendments in this group, and I certainly will try to avoid taking up your Lordships' time by repeating the same arguments that I made in Committee, without much success I have to say. I will try to shorten what I wanted to say because of the lack of time.
If the deputy mayor is not just to be an ornament standing in at an engagement when the mayor is double-booked, we propose that the deputy mayor should be directly elected by the citizens of London in the same way and at the same time as they elect the mayor. The purpose of the amendments that I am proposing at this stage is to make it clear, which I clearly failed to do last time, that the mayor and his deputy shall be elected at the same time and on the same ticket.
Amendment No. 7 provides for the candidate for mayor to nominate his deputy to run on this joint ticket. Some of your Lordships might argue that that is not democratic, but at least the voters themselves will have some say in who is deputy mayor. If they do not like the mayoral candidate's choice, presumably they will vote for neither. It is certainly more democratic than the Government's proposal contained in Clause 41(3) which empowers the newly elected mayor to foist—I do not use that word lightly because he can do that—his choice on the electorate after they have elected the mayor when it is too late for the electors, who may not like that choice, to do anything about it.
All of the arguments that the Labour Party mustered for the election of a mayor apply equally to his deputy. Electing the deputy will give him not only status but also a greater degree of authority than he can expect if he is merely selected from among the assemblymen by the mayor to whom he will thereafter obviously be beholden.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in responding to my amendments on the previous occasion, argued:
"Our intention is that the deputy mayor should act as a link between the two directly elected bodies".
A few lines further on in Committee he said,
"It does give a separate position which … can provide a bridge between the two parts of this authority".—[Official Report, 14/6/99; co1.25.]
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, earlier in that speech also used the same phrase to describe the deputy mayor as a bridge between the two parts of the authority.
Obviously, this connection, whether they call it a link or a bridge, is exactly what the Government wanted; or at least what they wanted at that time because that is what the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, told us. That is the direct antithesis of what we all understand as the separation of powers. A distinct separation between the executive, in the person of the mayor, and including his deputy whenever he is performing those executive duties on the one hand, and the legislature in the form of the assembly on the other. At Committee stage I argued for a clear application of the doctrine of separation of powers but, in opposition to that, the Government spoke, as I have just quoted, of "links" and "bridges".
In August the Minister for London issued a consultation paper regarding the proposed interim organisation which is needed to be in place before the

217
mayor assumes office. On page 1 of that consultation paper, at point 1, the Minister says,
"There will be clear separation of powers between a directly elected executive mayor and a 25 member assembly".
We do not believe that there will be that clear separation of powers when there is a link or bridge in the person of the deputy mayor plucked out of the ranks of the assemblymen; someone who will then owe the mayor his support in the assembly as the price of the mayor's patronage. The amendments will put into effect what the Government now say, in the person of the Minister for London, they want to achieve—the separation of powers.
The Minister's statement is the very reason why I believe the Government should simply accept this series of amendments.
If the deputy were to be selected from amongst the assemblymen, there is a grave danger of a conflict of interests should the mayor and the assembly disagree on some topic or other, as they are more or less bound to do at some time, even assuming that the mayor is of the same party as the majority in the assembly. One neutralised assemblyman taken out of the assembly to become the deputy mayor from a mere 25 members represents the equivalent of four per cent of the votes.
For the first time we have in statute a separation of powers between the executive, in the form of the mayor, and the legislature, in the form of the assembly. The mayor is elected on his own manifesto and carries out his own polices. The assembly is there to scrutinise how he does that and only to a limited extent to exercise a check where they disagree. That check and balance disappears when four per cent of the legislature has a dual role as a member of the legislature and as a member of the executive. It is poacher and gamekeeper simultaneously. The mayor's authority comes directly from his having been elected as an individual. The Government's whole raison d'être for having a directly elected mayor was to secure his total independence. Here they are trying to tie him into the assembly.
In Committee, I asked the Minister how, when the deputy was performing his duties he could simultaneously find the time to perform his duties as an assemblyman. At that stage the Minister did not answer me; he may have thought of something now. But, most importantly, the deputy mayor temporarily acts in place of the mayor if a vacancy occurs, but with extremely circumscribed powers. I pointed out that those powers are so circumscribed that there is a virtual hiatus in many of the functions of the mayor's duties until a replacement is elected. I also drew the Committee's attention to the anomaly that there was no provision in this badly drafted Bill to cover the temporary incapacity of the mayor. I am glad to see that the Government are now attempting to rectify this although I shall comment on their proposals.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, was kind in the way that he mentioned that we have real difficulties. The Chief Whip said that the Government had taken note and that that is why there are so many amendments. The truth is that the measure was extraordinarily
218
badly drafted, so they had to take note. We did our duty properly in Committee. We wish to continue to do so at Report stage.
If the deputy mayor is to perform some of the mayor's functions, the voters are entitled to pick him for themselves, with a properly elected deputy with the authority of having been elected by the voters. The natural thing would be for him to take over the office on a permanent basis in the event of a vacancy or during a mayor's long-term incapacity. If the Government were to accept the amendment, there would be some consequential amendments. However, I assure the Minister that we would be co-operative in seeking to get them through as quickly as possible.
I should like to touch on the provisions that the Government have proposed with regard to Schedule 4. The production of four pages containing 22 amendments covering a possible vacancy in the office of mayor, the refusal or inability of the deputy mayor to be the acting mayor, and the consequent situation of the chairman of the assembly who then has to cease to be the chairman of the authority, looks like the creation of a deputy deputy mayor. I believe that that complicated machinery might very well have been avoided by the election of a deputy mayor who is divorced from the assembly.
Amendment No. 4 makes it clear that the authority consists of the mayor, the deputy mayor and the assembly. I still believe that omitting the reference to the deputy mayor from the list is demeaning to that office. I hope that the Government may feel that it is worth accepting our wording so that the authority consists of the mayor, the deputy mayor and the assembly. Whether or not the deputy mayor is directly elected, there is no justification for making him a virtual non-person in the definition of the authority. I hope that the Government will accept that provision.
I hope that the Government will agree that the direct election of a deputy mayor is far more democratic than the mayor selecting his own deputy without the assembly or electors being able to gainsay it. Perhaps that last thought may make the Government pause and reflect on the matter and accept the amendment and the resulting consequential amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the noble Baroness has had great experience of local government. Could she explain to the House how things would operate if the deputy mayor who was elected had a policy which was directly in conflict with the mayor? With her reputation as someone who likes to see tidy local government, would the noble Baroness please explain how that would be tidy?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, the bottom line is that the mayor and deputy mayor will have a manifesto. Presumably if the mayor chooses, and it is on a joint ticket, the problem mentioned by the noble Lord does not arise. They will run the election on a joint ticket. That is what my amendment provides.

219
I am grateful to the noble Lord for saying that I have enormous experience of local government. I should like to think that I have. If I have managed to convince the noble Lord that I have, I am very pleased—but I have not.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, during the last stage of the Bill, these Benches made clear that we were most unhappy about the structure for the new London authority proposed by the Government and set out at such great length in the Bill. However, we have taken the view that having made the effort at that stage to make alterations to the structure, such amendments will be fairly sparse from these Benches during this stage of the Bill. We believe that we need now to shift our concentration to improving the Bill within the framework on which the Government are so clearly set. In particular, we are not at this stage attempting to change the role of the assembly members other than in rather narrow areas.
Similarly, I believe that to have a mayoral candidate running on a joint ticket with a deputy mayoral candidate is likely to confuse the electors who will have four votes on 4th May. That is already difficult enough. I believe that such a joint ticket would compromise the position of the deputy mayor as a member of the assembly. That position is important. All the members of the assembly have a responsibility to scrutinise the actions of the mayor. We believe that that scrutiny function means a mixture of supporting the mayor when the mayor is right in the eyes of the assembly members—that may well mean supporting the mayor against an over-centralising central government—but also reining back the mayor when the members of the assembly believe that the mayor is going off course. We should be concerned to see such a change as proposed by the noble Baroness.
Nor do we believe—the recent brief exchange demonstrated it—that the joint ticket would be more democratic. It would be more democratic if one could vote for a mayoral candidate from one party and a deputy mayoral candidate from another, but not if there is a joint ticket. I do not think that that argument stands up. Therefore, I regret that we are unable to support this amendment or the accompanying amendments.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, it is good news that the Liberal Democrats are not going to continue their strategy of attempting to turn the Bill into something they would have had if they had been in government rather than dealing with the Bill the Government propose. I am glad to hear that. I had said to them that I hoped that that is what they would do. I do not know whether I had any influence; but if I had I think the House owes me a little credit as well as them!
If the Government will not accept this idea, I should like to say (if it does not sound too pompous) that I think that they will be making a mistake. Many of the
220
amendments that the Government have put down are technical amendments. That is always a good thing to do. It is the job of the House. It is a sign that the Government have not drafted the Bill very well, but as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said, that happened also when the present Opposition were on the other side of the Chamber. It is something that we regret, but it is necessary and we have to accommodate it.
However, this is not a technical matter. It is seminal to the way the new government of London will work. I believe that my noble friend's idea is more likely to work than that proposed by the Government. I believe that they should consider it seriously.
When replying to the amendment in Committee, the Minister said that it would make for too much conflict if there were a deputy mayor on a joint ticket with the mayor. He said that there would be three directly elected components instead of two: a mayor, a deputy mayor, and the assembly. He also said that people have not voted for that. I do not believe that those three statements are valid. If the mayor and deputy mayor were elected on a joint ticket, the electorate would overwhelmingly expect them to agree.
I do not believe that the Minister thought it relevant on the last occasion, but perhaps he would turn his mind to what we all understand is the way things work in the United States of America. It would be very unlikely indeed that the President and Vice-President would disagree. If they did I believe that the Vice-President would have to resign. It is quite a simple point. The Minister said that people working in local government should understand this. My noble friend pointed out that what happens in local government is not similar. The matter has nothing to do with local government. It is a new form of such government. The separation of powers has nothing whatever to do with existing local government.
The noble Lord said that there would be three directly elected components if this amendment were adopted. There would be only two. There would the mayor and the deputy mayor and one vote. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that one would not vote twice on a joint ticket, but once only. There would be the assembly. The components would be only two in number. The first would have added to it the deputy mayor.
The noble Lord said that the people have not voted on this matter. We must use referendums intelligently. When the people voted they did so for a system which they assumed would work. Having proposed one structure, if the Government believe that it should be changed in order to make the system work better, no one would welcome it more than the people of London. I certainly would welcome it. As a Londoner, I voted for a mayor and for the Bill as it stands. I would have no objection to Parliament improving the Bill so that it worked better. I believe that it would do so in the way proposed.
I genuinely believe that this is not a party political matter at all. We are trying to get the government of London to work. I believe that there will be far less conflict and far more effective government of London

221
if the deputy mayor and the mayor were on the same ticket and were distinct from the assembly. I very strongly support this group of amendments.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down perhaps I may make this point. I thought that I had not suggested that there would be an extra vote in any physical sense, but that there would be an extra person on the ballot paper or in the election literature, alongside each of the mayoral candidates. There will be four votes. The legislation provides for a first and second vote as regards the mayor and a vote for the electoral area assembly members. The fourth vote is for the top-up list. That was the context in which I made my comment.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of my noble friend. I have watched the process from the day of the referendum. As the process has continued, I believe that all of us have discovered that because it is totally new, there could be better arrangements. I feel very strongly that it is a good thing that the mayor tells the people of London who his deputy mayor is to be. I have made it absolutely clear that the distinguished leader of Wandsworth Council, Mr Eddie Lister, would be the deputy mayor if I were fortunate enough to become the mayor. There would be no conflict in that regard, as suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. On the contrary, I have chosen a person of exceptional talent and with experience of local government. It is good that the people of London know that it is a team. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that in every mayoral election in the United States of America—I have been studying the subject quite seriously—the mayor always informs the city who the deputy mayor will be and the name is not on the ballot paper. Of course, it is in the manifesto which clearly states why that person should be chosen.
Perhaps I may add a personal note as I consider the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, a close friend. Like the noble Lord, I have long believed that my noble friend Lady Miller has a long and distinguished record in local government because she has served on every committee in London for many years. She has specialised in selecting those for local government. I believe that my noble friend is wrong and that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is right. But we should all look on my noble friend as having great experience.
I say to the Minister very seriously that discovery has occurred during the past two-and-a-half years. We now know that the deputy mayor must come from the assembly, but will not be its chairman who will be another person. We could follow the road advocated by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, if, when elected, one looked at the assembly and said, "Now I have to find someone to be my deputy mayor". It would he much better to say, "I know who I want as my deputy".
In our party—I suspect it will also be the case for the Labour Party —I have stated that I want Mr Eddie Lister. Naturally, the team picking those to take the
222
GLA places is making sure, I hope, that Mr Lister will be at the top of the list otherwise one will need to look at the people who have been selected and choose in that way. When the Labour Party eventually finds a candidate, by whichever method, I hope that at least that candidate will be able to choose who his deputy will be.
I say to the Minister that if there is a chance of rethinking this matter, we would like to permit the mayoral candidates to pick their deputy mayors with the knowledge that they should be separated from the GLA because its chairman is not going to be the deputy mayor. I know that we face a long session over several days. I heard what was said by the Opposition Chief Whip. But we must not have a Bill which contains faults because it has been rushed through.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, not the least of the problems that we have faced constantly during debates on this Bill is the fact that the separation of powers is not spelled out on the face of the Bill. It is implicit within its massive content. Clause 31 deals with delegation and there the matter becomes relatively more apparent. But in fact the separation of powers is not spelled out. For that reason in Amendment No. 1 there are the additional words,
"who will exercise the executive power of the Authority".
Amendment No. 2 is grouped separately, but none the less it is relatively meaningless unless Amendment No. 1 is accepted. It is the second part of a pair of amendments which put on the face of the Bill the separation of powers which otherwise have to be sought in the document The Shape of Things lo Come? I suppose that it is a semi-official description of the future structure and the initial organisation of the Greater London Authority. There one sees how the separation of powers is set out.
We tend to think of the separation of powers almost automatically—perhaps completely erroneously, but none the less a fact—in the context of such separation in the constitution of the United States of America. There is a fundamental difference as regards the position that the Greater London Authority will face and its constitution. The assembly is not a legislature. It is not intended to be so. It has no possible role is which it could fulfil that particular function.
Despite that, the assembly will exist to scrutinise the work of the mayor. As regards London, the mayor is virtually the executive and legislature rolled into one. All that the assembly can do is to supervise, examine and criticise, if it so pleases, what he is doing. That is a fundamental distinction. It is not readily apparent to the normal person outside in the street that that is what has happened. That is the reason why Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are worded as they are.
The problem is that the position of the deputy mayor completely breaches that separation of powers because in particular circumstances—it has to be acknowledged that they may never arise and one might hope that they would never arise—the deputy mayor has to act either as or for the mayor, and for a temporary period he could even become the mayor. At

223
the same time he is expected or supposed to fulfil a full role as a member of the assembly. That is neither a practical proposition nor a reasonable way to proceed. Therefore, I have the greatest pleasure in supporting my noble friend's remarks on the first amendment.
Perhaps the House will forgive me for jumping a little ahead of the game: should the amendment fall, I shall probably not trouble the House by moving the second amendment. I am glad to support Amendment No. 1.
4 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, with the leave of the House and in respect of the Chief Whip's comments, perhaps I may say that in many respects I regret the number of amendments which we are tabling. As the noble Lord, Lord Archer, says, they are an attempt to make the Bill right. I believe that as we go through the Bill there will be greater consensus on those amendments than perhaps appears at first sight.
Unfortunately, however, that does not apply to the first amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, proposed a similar, although not entirely the same, amendment in Committee. I believe that part of the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, is that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, has shifted her ground slightly. We have previously discussed the direct election of a deputy mayor. We are now discussing an indirect election for the deputy mayor on the coat-tails of the mayor. If we are using the American analogy, we refer to the system that almost gave us Spiro Agnew as President of the United States. That does not lend a particularly attractive or democratic legitimacy to these proceedings.
That system would, in certain circumstances, also lead to exactly the kind of situation to which my noble friend Lord Mishcon referred. For example, if there were a less than credible candidate for mayor—not that there is any such in this House or elsewhere—that candidate might be tempted to have a populist running-mate. That would open up the possibility of serious conflict. One can also envisage exactly the opposite situation.
It must be clear that it is the mayor who has democratic legitimacy; that it is the mayor for whom people are voting and that it is the mayor who will have those powers. We have indicated that a deputy mayor should be designated by the mayor and should, as the noble Baroness said, be the bridge between the mayor and the assembly. Far from being foisted upon the people of London, they will have a democratic legitimacy, having been elected through the assembly. That provides the flexibility that the mayor will need as well as the link to the assembly.
Regarding the clean separation of powers to which the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and other noble Lords referred, we believe that we need some link between the various parts of the new authority. Indeed, with reference again to the United States, there is a link in the opposite direction, as it were, in that the
224
Vice-President sits as the Chair of the Senate. We are doing it the other way round, in some sense, and it will bring the two elements a little further together.
That system does not preclude the mayoral candidate from identifying in advance whom his running-mate shall be on the list of assembly candidates. If elected, the running-mate will become deputy mayor. But there must be left with the mayor the responsibility and the authority, throughout his term, to have a deputy mayor who will work with him. That means that the ability to change the deputy during the course of the term of mayor, if that relationship fails, must be left to the mayor. If that is not done, one builds in—even where candidates run on a joint ticket—the potential for further division and for a problem in terms of the mayor carrying out his function.
If the noble Baroness's amendments were accepted, the mayor could not change the deputy during the course of his own term. That is a recipe for greater confusion, not less. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness is able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I have listened carefully to what the Minister said, as I always do. I must confess that I am somewhat disappointed. I do not really agree with his premise. I believe that in America where a President and Vice-President are elected on a joint ticket, the problems which the Minister has just envisaged do not actually occur. He proposes that the mayor can choose someone from the assembly and that it can therefore be said that they were democratically elected. But they were elected to the assembly, and that is not necessarily what the people of London might want for their deputy mayor. If the candidates ran on a joint ticket, the people of London would know who they were.
However, I do not wish to pursue the matter any longer. I hope that, even at this late stage, the Minister and his colleagues will have another rethink. There is a lot to be said for the suggestion in my amendment. I realise that it would cause some difficulty in terms of the way in which the Bill is structured, but I believe that that could be dealt with. However, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 2 to 4 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 5 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 5A:
Page 2, line 18, at end insert ("; and
(c) the holding of an election for Mayor in the event of a vote of no confidence in accordance with section 14(c)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 22. The amendments are tabled in my name and in that of my noble friend Lord Tope. I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, had hoped to have had her name added to the amendment, which builds substantially on the Conservatives' amendment tabled in Committee. I know that some difficulties were

225
experienced by the Public Bill Office at the end of last week and the beginning of this week, given the number of amendments which arrived on their desk so late in the day.
The amendment gives me the opportunity to say that the House must, on this point, "think the unthinkable"; that is, about the position if the mayor loses the confidence of the assembly and of London. Amendment No. 5A is a paving amendment, adding a reference to the mayor being returned at an election after a vote of no confidence in his predecessor, or indeed in the same person if the electorate turns out to have greater confidence in him than had the assembly members. Our Amendment No. 22 which, if accepted, would become Clause 14(c), deals with a declaration of vacancy in the office in the event of a vote of no confidence. That vote would be cast by 19 members of the assembly out of the total of 25.
At the last stage of the Bill, my noble friends and I proposed that a vote of no confidence to unseat the mayor would require a two-thirds majority of the assembly. We added what became known as "the nuclear option", which would be the automatic resignation of the assembly members. In other words, all the members of the new authority, whatever their capacity, would have to go to the electorate. Other noble Lords thought that that was unrealistic on our part and we have accepted that view. The Conservatives proposed in a similar amendment that there should be a unanimous vote against the mayor in order to achieve his unseating.
I said that we need here to think the unthinkable. The Government have done so in their drafting to the extent of dealing with criminal offences which would commonly lead to disqualification from local government, electoral offences, bankruptcy, and criminal offences which carry the possibility of a custodial sentence.
However, it is by no means impossible that a mayor should lose the confidence of the assembly and of Londoners which is, of course, particularly important. In our view the assembly has a particular responsibility to speak for Londoners. The assembly has the job of scrutinising the mayor's decisions and actions and will be well placed to judge the conduct of the mayor and whether particular conduct might bring the office of mayor and the whole of the work of the authority into disrepute; for example, if the mayor's priorities lost touch with reality or even if the mayor's personal conduct affected public respect for the office. We believe that generally a politician's private life should remain private, but I mention that area of concern because, by definition, given the structure of the new authority, the mayor will be a big personality. The whole structure is designed for personality politics. Therefore, we believe that the mayor's general conduct is relevant where, in other offices, it might not be.
It is a sad fact—and I know that it is a concern shared right across the House—that confidence in politics and politicians is at a very low ebb. That is manifested in low turnouts, including that at the referendum last year for London government.
Therefore, to argue that a matter of confidence would begin and end with the electorate only at the time of the election is, I believe, ducking the issue of the responsibility of other politicians to that electorate.
I was a member of a Select Committee of this House and another place which considered a draft Bill on local government. That Bill is likely to come to your Lordships in the next Session. The aim of the Bill was in part to deal with the introduction of executive mayors into local government. During the proceedings of the committee, it was commented that to have no provision for the recall of an executive mayor would be unique. Most other countries have either an impeachment process or a process to allow voters to petition. There is no mechanism such as a voter petition in this case. If there were to be—and we have not proposed this—it would raise questions about how many signatories would be required. I understand that in Los Angeles 15 per cent of the electorate signing a petition can cause the mayor to leave office. That is a large number of people but quite a small proportion of the electorate. If that were to be the course that your Lordships favoured—in other words, some mechanism for the electors who put the mayor in office in the first place—I have wondered how he or she would be removed. Perhaps coupons would be printed by the Evening Standard to be returned. May be there would be the option to call an 0800 telephone number to register a view, although it occurred to me that that might be an income-generating activity if premium rates were charged.
That is not sensible. We believe that it should be possible for the politicians—the assembly members—to act as leaders in such an unhappy situation, if it were to happen. The figure of 19 members out of 25 proposed by the amendment is a high proportion. We do not believe that it could easily be achieved. We accept that. Indeed we have deliberately sought a high proportion. We have not proposed unanimity among the assembly members. We do not believe that that would be appropriate. Some of the assembly members—for example, the deputy mayor whose position we have just debated—could be so closely associated with the mayor that it would be in their personal interests to vote to support the mayor.
In other countries mechanisms flow from different constitutions; for example, the decision of a supervising governor. In Japan, I understand, a proportion of the assembly can pass a resolution of no confidence which allows the mayor to dissolve the whole body. We in this country have an unwritten constitution. In this Parliament, the Prime Minister may be subject to a vote of no confidence and that would normally lead to the dissolution of Parliament. The constitution of the new London authority is not unwritten. Indeed, one might say it is overly written.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, given how circumscribed and very detailed the constitution is, we do not believe that this is an omission which should remain. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I am very pleased that I was able to add my name to Amendment No. 5A. As noble Lords will know, in Committee I tabled a similar amendment except that the power to remove the mayor depended upon there being a no confidence vote, unanimously passed. Clearly, since that debate I have had time to reflect and I hope that the Government have done likewise, because I now accept that a unanimous vote of no confidence is not a practical possibility. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, at least one member of the assembly—that is, the deputy mayor—will be beholden to the mayor for his position as deputy. Therefore, the chances of him voting against the mayor are highly unlikely. Secondly, under the system of proportional representation being used in this case, it is possible that a fringe party might somehow secure one single assembly member.
We propose the number of 19 members because that is equivalent to four-fifths of 80 per cent. It is a very substantial proportion and represents a hurdle which could be overcome only with cross-party support. That seems to us an impossible state of affairs. If a mayor for some reason behaved in a certain way, he could not be got rid of. It is unacceptable and, in my opinion, strange that in an office where the incumbent is elected for a fixed term, there is no power to remove him except on the very restricted grounds provided in Clauses 13 and 14. The Prime Minister can be removed if he loses the confidence of his parliamentary colleagues and they vote against him. I believe that that can happen on a simple majority. Therefore, it seems an extraordinary state of affairs that this cannot happen with the mayor. The occupant of the humblest political office—the chairman of a ward—would be bound to go in such circumstances if his committee voted against him. High Court judges can be removed from office under very stringent conditions. The most powerful man on earth—the President of the United States of America—can be removed from office by Congress. In the lifetime of every one of your Lordships, two presidents have very narrowly escaped that indignity.
Let us suppose that the mayor commits a serious crime for which he has not yet been convicted. Of course everyone is entitled to a fair trial and to be presumed innocent until proved guilty. But should the mayor shoot the leader of the opposition in full view of the entire assembly, is he to continue in office for perhaps the time it might take to bring him to trial? The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, did postulate the possibility of an entirely independent person, unconnected with any party, being elected as mayor. As the noble Lord put it, the party establishments would then gang up on him and remove him even though he had the endorsement of Londoners in a direct election.
228
The noble Lord upbraided me—rather nicely, I might say—during the debate on Amendments Nos. 48 and 50 in Committee for pointing to what he described as,
"a somewhat improbable set of circumstances".—[Official Report, 14/6/99; col. 102.]
An independent candidate may stand for mayor. But while, of course, anything is possible, it is not necessarily probable. I cannot envisage an independent candidate beating the choice of any of the party machines. But let us suppose that that improbable event did occur. Is the Minister suggesting that new Labour would be a party to "ganging up" on the choice of the people of London? I have no authority to speak on behalf of the Conservatives on what is clearly a hypothetical point. However, I can say that I do not know of any one of my colleagues who would countenance such disgraceful conduct—"ganging up" on someone because he was not a member of the party when he really had not done anything that deserved it.
In rejecting my amendment, the noble Lord said also that this was a matter for the people, not the assembly. But how is the people's will to be expressed? The Government have made no provision for a recall petition, and perhaps that is just as well too. How does anyone set about collecting and verifying, for example, half a million signatures? The assembly is specifically charged with the duty of supervising the mayor and that is a mere piece of window dressing if it has no power remove him for what the American constitution neatly calls, without specific definition, "grave crimes and misdemeanours". The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred simply to "losing the confidence of". There could be a variety of issues that caused that to happen. The constitution the Government are proposing for our capital city is that the mayor is virtually irremovable, no matter what. That cannot be right and I very much support the amendment.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I support the amendment. This is possibly one of the most significant issues we shall consider today. I certainly think that it is the most significant omission from the Bill, or the Bill as it will be amended during the course of our proceedings. My noble friend Lady Hamwee says that we must think the unthinkable. We have had to do that a number of times. Much of the Bill is devoted to making provision for circumstances which we all hope and many of us believe will never happen, but which may happen.
It is conceivable that in the future a mayor will lose the confidence of Londoners. I do not mean that the mayor will have low opinion poll ratings. That is almost certain to happen and has been the experience of most politicians at some time. I am visualising more serious events when the mayor loses the confidence of Londoners and of their representatives elected in the assembly. I do not wish to indulge in hypothetical conjecture of what such situations could be, but let us accept that there is that possibility.
What happens then? Noble Lords have pointed out that in the Bill as it stands we have a situation where the mayor is above recall. There are no mechanisms for

229
recalling the mayor, whatever the circumstances, other than those provided for in criminal law and so on. It is astonishing that a Bill of such length and detail omits a matter as important and as significant as that. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, at the previous stage, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said that there might be "frivolous action" by assembly members ganging up together against the poor innocent mayor. I believe that that is highly unlikely. We have provided here that three-quarters of the assembly members—19 out of 25—have to agree on a vote of no confidence in the mayor. No elected assembly person is going to take such a decision lightly. They too will be answerable to the electors of London. If, by so doing, they force another election on Londoners, then Londoners will make their judgment on assembly members as well as on the mayor. This is not something which will be done frivolously by any assembly member.
To secure a coalition of 19 assembly members, all of whom will have been elected at the same time as the mayor—regardless of party or non-party affiliation, they will all have been elected in the same election—and get them to agree on such a serious step would mean that London and London government would be facing a very serious situation. All of us hope it will never happen, but it may. The Government may disagree with the mechanism we suggest for dealing with this unlikely situation. If so, I should like the Minister to tell us what he feels about the principle. Does he acknowledge that this is a situation that could happen? If he does, then what do the Government envisage should be done about it? In other words, I hope that he will deal with the principle of the situation, should it arise, rather than merely the mechanism.
If the Bill passes from your Lordships' House without some provision for dealing with the very serious situation where the mayor of London—a very high profile, public figure with considerable power—so significantly loses the confidence of the assembly and therefore, I am sure, of London voters, what do the Government propose should be done about it? We have proposed a sensible and serious way of dealing with the matter. We have reached agreement with the Conservative Opposition because both of us recognise that this is a situation for which we have to make provision. For that reason, we have come together to try to find, under all the circumstances, the most satisfactory answer.
Reference has been made to voter petitions. On a previous occasion I recall the Minister saying that it is the people who elect the person and that it should be the people who have the right to unelect the person. As a democratic principle, I adhere to that. However, the mechanics of trying to get a petition around 5 million London voters—or whatever proportion one chose, even the 15 per cent mentioned earlier—would be impossible. More importantly, too much time would be needed to organise that kind of action. The matter would need positive, firm but not precipitate action. The time taken to organise a voter petition could only be damaging for the good of London government.
230
I return to the point I made earlier. Whether or not the Government accept the amendment, I should like the Minister to tell us how they propose to deal with a situation that may arise at some time in the future where for some reason the mayor loses the confidence of the assembly and of London voters as a whole.
Lord Dahrendorf: My Lords, I wish simply to underline that this is an exceedingly difficult issue. My noble friend Lady Hamwee made an extremely balanced statement in pointing out what happens elsewhere in the world. I readily agree with my noble friend Lord Tope when he says that we should deal with the principle more than the mechanism. But in this particular case the mechanism is not unimportant. I feel that I must introduce into the debate some comments on my experience of what happens in other parts of the world. I cannot think of a single example of circumstances in which someone who is directly elected by the people can be removed by another body also elected. There should be a procedure which is in some form judicial. That is true of the United States Congress and the question of impeachment.
It is conceivable that one could return to the original electorate and invite a certain quorum of signatures. I must say to my noble friend Lord Tope that there are quite a few examples around the world where large numbers of signatures of voters are required in order to set in motion a complicated and serious process of this kind. In my view, the mechanism has to be judicial and cannot simply comprise the removal of a directly elected person by another elected body.
We are moving here into an area of constitutional innovation. It is important that we understand what we are doing. The direct election of a mayor by the people is a serious new phenomenon in the practical constitution of this country. It does not have to he a written constitution. We need to think the matter through. It means in principle that whoever is elected cannot be removed except by the electorate or possibly, and arguably—this is where the mechanism as well as the principle becomes so important—by finding a judicial or quasi-judicial procedure. Perhaps there could be some kind of impeachment procedure leading to the removal of the mayor.
I make these comments as a contribution to a continuing argument and not because I believe that I have the right answer. We should take this constitutional innovation seriously. I am wholly in favour of the process, but it has implications, particularly as regards the issue we are discussing.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords I am grateful for all the views that have been expressed, particularly those of the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, because this can become an issue of principle. Similar amendments were discussed in Committee. The noble Baroness has abandoned the "nuclear option", but she seems to be going for ritual execution.
There is a principle involved here. The principle behind the amendment results from an incorrect understanding of the authorities we are setting up. It

231
assumes that the assembly's mandate is in some sense superior to that of the mayor. That is not the case. Both will have been elected by the same electorate, some directly and some indirectly. The mayor will be elected directly by 5 million Londoners for four years. It does not seem to me that people elected in parallel have the right to remove that mayor.
I have been accused of citing highly unlikely situations. Perhaps I may suggest another extremely unlikely situation. It has been put to me that the noble Lord, Lord Archer, for example, is hugely more popular than is the Conservative Party as a whole in London. I do not necessarily subscribe to that view; nevertheless, it is not inconceivable. That could still mean that he was third in the election; nevertheless, if the noble Lord were elected on that basis and the Conservative Party only had 15 per cent of the vote in the assembly, it is very easy to see that the other parties could gang up against the noble Lord in his new capacity.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, it could equally apply to Mr Livingstone and the Labour Party.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, the Labour Party has yet to decide its candidate. Therefore, I could not possibly comment.
It would be unacceptable, therefore, if the 75 to 80 per cent of the assembly which was of a different political persuasion from the mayor, or was momentarily, over an important area of policy, out of sympathy with the mayor, could on political grounds vote against the mayor and remove him from office. No one else in our political system who is directly elected can be removed by somebody else who is directly elected. All the other examples—the Prime Minister, the chair of the branch, the leader of the council—are indirectly elected by the group or the party in power.
The people will have decided who the mayor should be and the people should have the right to remove the mayor after the due four years. That does not mean to say that the mayor cannot be removed. I remind noble Lords that the normal disqualification rules that apply throughout local government apply also to the mayor. The conduct of the mayor will have to comply with what is required in terms of the conduct of all councillors and other local authority representatives, but removal in those circumstances will be by a judicial procedure and not by a procedure of parallel democratic election. Removal would be for specified crimes. The crime of being momentarily unpopular with the assembly is not one which is recognised in local government law. It would not be sensible to pursue that line.
Noble Lords have tried to give as an analogy the position in the United States. Since similar amendments on impeachment were considered by a committee of the House in another place, we have seen a deeply flawed process in the United States in relation to this similar process, which was conducted, until people saw where it was leading them, on deeply partisan lines. That is not a system which I think
232
should be imported into British local government and in particular into local government in our capital city. That alone should warn people of the dangers of giving one set of democratically elected politicians the right to remove another democratically elected politician. The mayor should stand or fall subject to the law, and the law is pretty tight in relation to local government misdemeanours. The mayor, subject to the law, should be removed only by the people who have elected him.
That is a principle that divides these Benches and the Liberal Benches. I am slightly more surprised at the Conservative Front Bench's support for the amendment because those noble Lords started from the position of wanting a mayor and not an assembly. Now they are saying that the assembly should be able to get rid of the mayor. That is not a logical and consistent position.
I understand the position put forward by the Liberal Benches, but I do not agree with it and I do not believe that it is a democratic position. Therefore, I urge noble Lords not to accept the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I should like to deal first with the point made by my noble friend Lord Dahrendorf. I note his concern and anxiety, which I share. However, my noble friend makes the very important point that the Bill has no mechanism for dealing with a mayor who loses the confidence of both the electorate and other politicians, but most importantly the confidence of the electorate.
The Minister criticises the amendment on the basis that we are assuming that the assembly mandate is superior to that of the mayor. That is not the basis of our argument. We are seeking a mechanism to deal with the position where, for example, two years into a four-year term the mayor goes off the rails. The Minister states that no one else in government can be removed in this way. No one in local government or at any other level of government in this country will be elected in this way. We have to deal with a very particular situation. I accept that the normal local government provisions will apply, but they are not adequate to deal with the variety of situations which we hope will not arise, but which just conceivably might.
The criticism is also made that a temporarily unpopular mayor could be disposed of by an assembly acting in an irresponsible manner. I accept that that is just conceivably possible, but I suggest that it is likely that assembly members, who must have an eye to their own position, would be very careful about such an action.
The short point is that there is no proposal in the Bill for dealing with a mayor who acts improperly—but not improperly within the criminal provisions to which the noble Lord has referred. We would look at any proposed judicial mechanism carefully and we might well support it, but the Government have not come forward with such a mechanism. We have thought very carefully, and I hope responsibly, about how such matters should be tackled. I believe that this is a matter on which we should seek the opinion of the House.
4.37 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 5A) shall be agreed to?
*Their Lordships divided: Contents, 213; Not-Contents, 117.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Addison, V.

Elton, L.

Ailsa, M.

Ezra, L.

Alderdice, L.

Falkland, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Ferrers, E.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Fookes, B.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Geddes, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare,

Geraint, L.

L.

Gisborough, L.

Arran, E.

Glanusk, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Astor, V.

Glentoran, L

Astor of Hever, L.

Goodhart, L.

Attlee, E.

Gray, L.

Avebury, L.

Gretton, L.

Barker, B.

Grey, E.

Bathurst, E.

Hampton, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Hamwee, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hanham, B

Berners, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Bethell, L.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Blaker, L.

Harrowby, E.

Blatch, B.

Hayhoe, L.

Boardman, L.

Henley, L. [Teller]

Bowness, L.

Higgins, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hogg, B.

Bradshaw, L.

Holderness, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Howe, E.

Bruntisfield, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Burnham, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Buscombe, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Butterworth, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Byford, B.

Jopling, L.

Cadman, L.

Kelvedon, L.

Caithness, E.

Keyes, L.

Calverley, L.

Kimball, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Kintore, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Carlisle, E.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Carnock, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Chadlington, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Chesham, L.

Leigh, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Liverpool, E.

Clement-Jones, L.

Long, V.

Coleraine, L.

Lucas, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Courtown, E.

Luke, L.

Davidson, V.

Lyell, L

Dean of Harptree, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Denbigh, E.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Dholakia, L.

McNair, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

McNally, L.

Donegall, M.

Maddock, B.

Downshire, M.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Dundonald, E.

Marlesford, L.

Dunleath, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Effingham, E.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Ellenborough, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Elles, B.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

234

Monk Bretton, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Rowallan, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Russell, E.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Montrose, D.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Mountevans, L.

St. Davids, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Moyne, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Moynihan, L.

Sandberg, L.

Munster, E.

Seccombe, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Selborne, E.

Naseby, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Newall, L.

Sharples, B.

Newby, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Norfolk, D.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Norrie, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Northbrook, L.

Slim, V.

Northesk, E.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Ogmore, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Onslow of Woking, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Swansea, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Swinfen, L.

Pender, L.

Taverne, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L

Thurso, V.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Tope, L. [Teller]

Radnor, E.

Townshend, M.

Rathcavan, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Razzall, L.

Trumpington, B.

Reay, L.

Tryon, L

Redesdale, L.

Vivian, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Warnock, B.

Rennard, L

Waterford, M.

Renton, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Renwick, L.

Wharton, B.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Wigoder, L.

Rochester, L.

Wilcox, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Romney, E.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Desai, L.

Ahmed, L.

Dixon, L.

Alli, L

Dormand of Easington, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L

Dubs, L.

Amos, B.

Elder, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L

Bach, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Barnett, L.

Fitt, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Berkeley, L.

Goudie, B.

Blackstone, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Blease, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Bragg, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Brett, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Burlison, L.

Haskel, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Hayman, B.

Christopher, L.

Healey, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L

Clinton-Davis, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Crawley, B.

Hoyle, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord

David, B.

Chancellor)

Davies of Coity, L.

Islwyn, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

235

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord

Rea, L.

Privy Seat)

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Richard, L.

Kennet, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Sawyer, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Serota, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Shepherd, L.

Lockwood, B.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Simon, V.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

[Teller]

Strabolgi, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Marsh, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Thornton, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Varley, L.

Mishcon, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Molloy, L.

Walpole, L.

Monkswell, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Weatherill, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Orme, L.

Whitty, L.

Peston, L.

Wilkins, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Winston, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Young of Old Scone, B.

[*The Tellers for the Contents reported 213 names. The Clerks recorded 212 names.]
Resolved in the affirmative and amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.55 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 6 to 8 not moved.]
Clause 3 [Time of ordinary elections]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 3, line 20, at end insert—

("(d) for or in connection with enabling electors to vote in the poll at such polling stations or other places as may be prescribed, at such times as may be prescribed, on such one or more days preceding the date specified in or provided under subsection (1) above for the poll as may be specified in the order.

( ) The provision that may be made by an order under paragraph (d) of subsection (4) above includes provision for such enactments or statutory instruments as may be specified in the order to have effect with such modifications as may be so specified.
( ) In this section "prescribed" means specified in, or determined in accordance with, an order under this section.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 9 gives the Secretary of State an enabling power to introduce a system of early voting at the first GLA elections next year. This is a new concept. By "early voting" we mean the option for voters to vote in person at a polling station on a day before polling day itself. Putting this in the Bill does not mean that we have made a final decision on whether or not to proceed with early voting for the first GLA elections. We want first to discuss the details with the London boroughs, the Common Council, electoral practitioners and the main political parties. If a suitable system can be developed in time this amendment would give us the power to implement it, and I commend it to the House.
The introduction of such a system was recommended by the official Working Party on Electoral Procedures under the chairmanship of George Howarth, which included
236
representatives of all political parties, in its interim report of January 1998. Such a procedure could ensure a higher turnout of voters for the London elections and it is one for which we should provide the power. Whether we can do so will depend on the conditions to which I have alluded. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am thoroughly opposed to introducing an innovation like this at this stage of the Bill. It is something which requires debate and a great deal of consideration. We need to consider what the consequences might be and whether those are desirable. To do it "on the nod" on a Government amendment in the spill-over period at Report stage is, to my mind, totally unsatisfactory.
The Minister has given no justification for this amendment except for a reference to a report which, as far as I know, is not before the House. I do not see it on the table at the moment. I consider this to be entirely unsatisfactory and I do not believe, unless I am contradicted and comforted by my own Front Bench, that we should pass this amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for a meeting we had last week and for a preliminary discussion of this particular subject, since which time I have had the opportunity to test the views of those from another place to a limited degree. I am happy to say that, in principle, they think that anything that would make the voting process easier for the public is to be commended. Therefore, despite the doubts of my noble friend Lord Lucas about the method by which this amendment is being introduced at this late stage—and we have already had sufficient debate on that matter this aftemoon—the principle is not objectionable.
The only comment that was made to me was that one might perhaps need to think carefully about how this would be done. If one were to have a polling station open on a Sunday, that might offend Christians. Similarly, I am told that doing so on a Saturday might perhaps offend Jews and that having a polling station open on Fridays might offend Moslems. However, as we have permitted shopping and everything else to take place on these days, it seems to me that that is not an argument. Providing that such polling stations were not open on a particular day but were available for a number of days, I believe that that specific objection would be overcome.
I am happy to support the amendment. It will be very interesting to see how it works and whether Londoners—if they are given the chance—will avail themselves of the opportunity and to what extent they do so.
Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps I should preface my remarks by declaring a potential interest in these matters as someone who has been selected as a prospective Greater London assembly candidate.
I, too, welcome the amendment. I know that some discussion has taken place within local government about this possibility during the past few weeks. I believe that there is quite widespread support for this as an innovation. There are many advantages to this proposal. We must recognise that working patterns have changed quite dramatically in recent years. Many people now leave their homes during the early hours of the morning, especially

237
those who live in the outer suburbs of London. They do not have the opportunity to vote, or it may not be convenient for them to do so on the particular days set for elections. Moreover, they may not realise this in time to apply for an absent voting arrangement. Therefore, this kind of flexibility would enable people to respond accordingly.
Part of the process that we are discussing must involve separate polling stations being available for a number of days. My own view is that we will not see an enormous uptake of this opportunity at the elections. However, it is an additional facility that ought to be offered to the public and one which should be monitored carefully during the elections. I am sure that it will be of general value in future elections. It is a welcome innovation and I am certainly not disappointed to see it put forward at this stage; indeed, I would have been very unhappy not to have seen it brought forward because it seems to me to be an innovation which is widely accepted.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I do not object to the amendment but I hope that those who consider it will do so rather carefully. There are some quite serious technical difficulties involved. We keep quoting examples from the United States, but I shall do so now in a totally different way. Because the USA is a big country, voting commences either three or four hours earlier in one area than another and, equally, polling stops earlier. As a result, the authorities have had to adopt some very careful rules to ensure that the people who vote late are not influenced by the exit polls or the results of voting in, say, New York or Washington—or, indeed, along the east coast of America in general.
We could have people voting on Sunday; indeed, I do not know why we do not all vote on Sunday. An awful lot of people vote on Sundays and it is a day when most people are not working. If, for example, some people voted on a Sunday and others voted on the subsequent Thursday, exit polls taken from people coming out of the polling stations on Sunday might very well influence the way people voted on the Thursday. People like to be on the winning side and that is one of the things that happen in elections. That is just one of a number of obvious technical problems. A slightly more frivolous one is that f hope that the fact that people are able to vote early will not mean that they will be permitted to vote often.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am grateful for the support expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and by my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey. It should be clear that a lot of further, detailed work will be required with the London boroughs and with the election officers before we could put this process into practice. However, it would be remiss of the House not to allow this possibility for the GLA elections.
As regards the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, I should point out that it is a different situation when the whole electorate has voted early in one part of the country, with an exit poll being taken, and where a few people have voted on a quite unrepresentative basis at an early date. We manage to keep the results of the European elections (where people vote on different days) secret until they are all announced on the Sunday. Therefore, I see no reason why we should not do so for these elections. I commend the amendment to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Voting at ordinary elections]:
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 4, line 13, leave out subsection (10) and insert—
("(10) At an ordinary election a person may not be both a candidate to be an Assembly member and a candidate for Mayor or Deputy Mayor.")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 12. Both amendments cover an identical point which occurs in different parts of the Bill. They would prohibit a person from simultaneously being a candidate for both the office of mayor and for a place in the assembly.
When I raised this matter in Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, who responded for the Government, pointed out in an endeavour to be helpful—for which I thank her—that under Clause 4(7):
"The persons who are to be returned as—

(a) the Mayor, and

(b) the constituency members,

must be determined before it is determined who are to be returned as the London members"—
in other words, if the person who is elected mayor was also high up on his party's list for being a London member, he is eliminated from the list.
I can understand a party wanting to place a mayoral candidate in a favoured position so that it can get him on the assembly if he fails to get elected as mayor, but why should he be allowed to have this safety net? Is it a qualification for a seat in the assembly that the electors did not think that you were fit to be the mayor? If you are not fit to be mayor, how are you qualified to exercise the supervisory and advisory functions of an assembly member?
The so-called "London members" are being elected by proportional representation off party lists. As an intrinsic part of that system, it is only those at the top of the list and who are not ineligible for some reason or other who get elected. As drawn, the Bill allows someone to stand simultaneously for mayor and also for a place in the assembly. I ask again: why should this be permitted? Why should someone be allowed to ride two horses at the same time?
A parliamentary candidate is not allowed to stand for two constituencies simultaneously, so why should the candidate for mayor be allowed to hedge his bets in this way? Is it not demeaning to the office of assembly members that a person standing for the office of mayor should say, in effect, "Well, if I'm good enough, elect me as mayor, but if I am not good enough for that, why not let me settle for second best"?
Although the Government accept that a person has to be eliminated from the contest for election as a London member if he is elected the mayor, there is still the anomaly of the person standing for and being elected simultaneously as a constituency member and the mayor. This would give rise to the need for an immediate by-election. Is that not the height of folly?
The Government have already legislated in Clause 10(10) against a candidate running in a by-election for a vacancy as a constituency assembly member if he is already a member of

239
the assembly or the mayor. The Government have already legislated in Clause 16(10) against a person simultaneously standing in by-elections to fill casual vacancies for mayor and the assembly. Why then do the Government turn their face against a person running for both offices in by-elections but insist on permitting it in an ordinary general election?
The noble Baroness did not deal with those points on the last occasion that the issue was before your Lordships. I do not believe that any logical reason can be given for the Government insisting on this anomalous position and I have brought back the matter for your Lordships' further consideration. I beg to move.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I listened with interest to the noble Baroness. She moved her amendment solely in terms of the mayor and whether the mayor should be able to be a candidate for the assembly—and I have some sympathy with her arguments. I have also some sympathy with the smaller parties—the Greens, for instance—which may well recognise that their candidate is not likely to be elected as mayor, but wish to have their best person standing for that role and to be a member of the assembly, which is a little more likely.
The amendment refers also to the deputy mayor. As we discussed earlier, we differ on that matter. We certainly would not support the amendment—for reasons we have rehearsed many times; I shall not do so again. We believe strongly that the deputy mayor should be able not only to stand for the assembly, but should also be a member of it.
Lord Witty: My Lords, given that the noble Baroness did not pursue her earlier amendment, if this amendment were to be agreed, the provisions would be somewhat flawed. The question of fitness for these offices is a matter for the political parties putting forward candidates and for the electorate who will judge them. It is clear that the mayor cannot occupy both offices at once, but there is absolutely no reason why, in the first instance, the electorate should not be asked to decide about someone who is a candidate for mayor and who also appears on the party list. In the possible event of a candidate being elected to both offices, there would have to be a by-election. That is a relatively small price to pay for allowing the parties and the electorate the freedom to choose whoever they wish. I am not convinced by the noble Baroness.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, are correct. It would have been very different if the Minister on behalf of the Government had accepted my earlier amendments concerning the deputy mayor. I had such confidence that he would accept the amendments that I did not think it was necessary to table an amendment to this provision. In view of that, I shall not seek to press the amendment. I hope that the Government will reconsider the position in order that we may bring it back at Third Reading, if necessary, with the deputy mayor omitted.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.15 p.m.
Schedule 2 [Voting at elections]:
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 207, line 27, at end insert ("no later than 55 days prior to the date set for the ordinary election")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 11, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 13.
The Registration of Political Parties Act 1998 was passed to set up proportional representation by the party list method. Amendment No. 13 is a technical amendment which is partly dependent on Amendment No. 11 being agreed. It also tidies up the 1998 Act by setting a time-limit on the registration of political parties for Greater London election purposes.
The main amendment requires a party to submit its list of candidates no later than 55 days before the date of the election. That is more or less the equivalent of two months or 11 five-day working weeks. A 55-day deadline will serve to discourage last-minute entries by single-issue pressure groups. I remind your Lordships that as long ago as 17th May 1995 there was a debate on single-issue pressure groups when it was generally agreed that such groups often exercise an undue and undemocratic influence on governments. They are the inevitable consequence of proportional representation. However, we are not here to debate the merits—or lack of them—of voting systems.
The question is: whose convenience is to be considered? The registrar's duties are purely administrative. I venture to suggest that no more than a few hours' work is required to check the validity of each application. Any political party worth its salt will have its list ready well in advance of the 55-day deadline.
The public interest is paramount and needs to be considered. Bearing in mind that this election will be always on a fixed date, the public and the media are entitled to be given as much notice as possible of who the candidates are as that will enable them to make a thorough check of the candidates' antecedents and capabilities.
I was very surprised when the Government refused my amendment at an earlier stage. Despite studying the Government's reply, I cannot understand their reasons. The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, said that the time-table imposed by the amendment would give the registrar,
"effectively three weeks in which to register a late-arriving application".
However, under the Bill as it presently stands, there is no time-limit except the physical one of what it is possible for the registrar reasonably to do. According to the noble Baroness, the registrar's aim,
"is to decide straightforward applications within five days".—[Official Report, 14/6/99; col. 75.]
A possible five days; what sort of notice is that? To paraphrase Dr Johnson, if a party knows it will be excluded in two months, that will concentrate its mind wonderfully!
The next ground on which the Government opposed a time-limit was that one had not been imposed in any other election. The whole concept of PR and party lists is new to Britain. We are not talking about upsetting a long-standing, tried and tested system. Our concern—I am sure it is the concern of everyone in the House today—is London, a part of the United Kingdom which has a greater population than Wales and Scotland combined. What may suit two comparatively small electoral units may not suit London.
Equally, what is suitable for a national election for the European Parliament may not be suitable for local elections in the largest capital city in Europe. Are the Government telling us that the administrative arrangements for this novel form of election are the acme of perfection and need no adjustment or modification?
If the Government again ask your Lardships to reject this very modest, constructive and non-controversial slight modification to the rules, we should have a more explicit reason than the one given by the noble Baroness previously; that they do not
"add value to the Bill".—[Official Report, 14/6/99; col. 75.]
I think it makes the Bill better for the public. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Baroness has not convinced me. The strictures imposed by straightforward applications would not be a great burden on the registrar; in practice, he already substantially exceeds them.
Part of the problem is that we have a complexity of electoral law. In this area there seems to be no good reason why the time-scales and procedures applying to London should be different from those relevant to any other election. I am not sure that the noble Baroness has put forward a convincing argument as to why they should differ. It is normal procedure for time-scales to be set out in election rules rather than enshrined in primary legislation. As my noble friend Lady Farrington informed the House previously, we will follow that general practice in London.
There has been no move to put forward different time-scales and procedures in relation to other elections which have introduced new voting procedures and I see no reason to do so in London. I have heard nothing from the noble Baroness which would convince me to alter the procedure. Let us keep it simple.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords. there have not been many different kinds of electoral procedures. I made the point that Scotland and Wales cannot be compared to London; we think that London is special and I think that the amendments would be helpful. However, as the Minister wants to keep things simple, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 not moved.]
Clause 6 [Failure to attend meetings]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 4. line 23. leave out ("six") and insert ("three")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 15, 19 and 20. These two pairs of amendments deal with disqualification of, first, a member of the assembly and, secondly, the mayor for failure to attend.
We propose in both cases a reduction in the period of failure to attend that would lead to disqualification. The amendments are supported by the Conservatives. We have added accompanying amendments to provide that if the assembly agrees to a longer period of non-attendance, that would override the basic period.
The point about the period of non-attendance was made by the Conservatives at the previous stage. We thought that they had a good point. We propose that in both cases the period of six months should be reduced to three. In replying, the Minister said that six months was the period that applied in the case of local government —local authority councillors are disqualified if they fail to attend meetings over that period—and the Government saw no special reason for the period to be different in this case.
We believe that there is a difference. The assembly will have only 25 members. It will be a far smaller body than London borough, county, unitary and most district authorities. The impact of non-attendance will be proportionately greater.
The Minister said that it was unlikely that the mayor would consciously seek to avoid meetings but that he or she would have other "significant duties". The Minister could easily conceive of reasons—for example, illness—which would keep the mayor away.
This pair of amendments is intended as a balance. Six months is a long period. It is one-eighth of the term of office. However, there may be very good reasons for either an assembly member or the mayor being absent for more than three months. We follow the analogy of local government in the second of each pair of amendments by proposing that the assembly should be given the opportunity to consider whether the reason is a good one. If it is—for instance, illness—then, if noble Lords like to use the phraseology, the rule could be waived. The assembly will be in a position to judge whether a colleague or the mayor is "skiving" or whether he or she has a good reason for not being there for the period in question.
I recall a councillor colleague suffering from a long-term illness. It was well understood among councillors of all parties that that colleague was still carrying out certain functions as a councillor but that there were difficulties in attending meetings. Our proposals, which apply in local government, allowing the period to be altered are a matter of common sense and should apply in the case of both members of the assembly and the mayor. However, given the responsibilities and the numbers of people involved, the basic period should be reduced from six months to three months. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I have put my name to both Amendment No. 14 and Amendment No. 19 and I am pleased to support them. Both are to the same effect. One relates to absences on the part of an assembly member, and the other to absences on the part of the mayor. The principle is the same in both cases.
The Government suggest that an assembly member can be absent from no fewer than live consecutive meetings of the assembly and the mayor can be absent for five consecutive statutory meetings of the assembly without forfeiting office.
As I promised, I have carefully considered the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, in response to my amendment in Committee. It seems to me that her observations actually supported my amendments rather than providing a reason to reject them.

243
I turn first to the situation regarding the mayor, which is covered by Amendment No. 19. The Bill as drafted refers to the statutory monthly meetings of the assembly held pursuant to Clause 44(2). The mayor is obliged to attend pursuant to Clause 37(3). The Bill states that,
"The Mayor shall attend every meeting of the Assembly held pursuant to Section 44(2)".
There is no sanction if he does not, except in Clause 13, which, as drafted, provides for him to be disqualified if he fails to attend six consecutive statutory monthly meetings.
The noble Baroness, in her response regarding the mayor's attendance, said:
"The assembly will undoubtedly want to invite the mayor to attend the other meetings it will hold and the mayor will undoubtedly wish to accept such invitations"—[Official Report, 14/6/99; col. 92.]
Those "other meetings" are not what the amendment is about. I agree entirely that the mayor is not to be at the beck and call of the assembly. If it decides for its own reasons to meet, let us say, every Tuesday, there is no reason why the mayor should be required to drop everything in order to attend. However, the Minister later referred to a series of theoretical calamities which might make it necessary for three or more meetings of the assembly to be missed.
But we are not talking merely about meetings of the assembly. Clause 13 relates to the statutory monthly meeting which the mayor is required to attend under Clause 37(3). In her reply, again at col. 92 the Minister reminded the House:
"The meetings have been established for the express purpose of allowing the assembly to cross-examine the mayor about his decisions and actions".
In a mayoral term there will be 48 statutory monthly meetings of the assembly. Clause 13 as drafted permits the mayor to be absent for five statutory meetings before the sanction comes into effect. So despite what the Minister concedes is the vital importance of those meetings, the mayor could avoid attending all but eight of them during the whole of his term of office. That is "completely unacceptable." Those are the Minister's words, not mine. She said:
"we recognise that the mayor cannot be allowed to treat the assembly in a wholly cavalier manner".
In terms of absence, six monthly meetings are far too many. The absence of the mayor, even if his deputy turns up in his place, leaves the assembly virtually toothless. What will the assembly do during those six meetings? Will the members merely turn up and claim their allowances?
The mayors of other great cities spend a large part of their time, sometimes up to 18 hours a day, glued to their desks. Although we agree that the mayor will have duties, possibly overseas, promoting London as a business and tourist centre and studying the government of other cities, the dates of the statutory meetings will be well known. The mayor will simply fix his absences abroad around those dates.
I stress that our amendment refers to the mayor's absence from the statutory monthly meetings. The Minister's reply was based upon it relating to only six meetings of the assembly, including those that the law will not oblige him to attend. The Minister said that the Government were linking the procedure for
244
disqualification to the statutory monthly meetings. So do we. The difference between us is that we believe that three meetings should be the limit, not the six consecutive absences that the Government propose to grant.
I now turn to the situation regarding the assembly member covered by Amendment No. 14. The Government propose that an assembly member can be absent for up to six consecutive months from all, or any, meetings, statutory or otherwise. In her reply, the noble Baroness said, at col. 93:
"An assembly member is likely to be busy with the statutory monthly meetings and any committees … on which he is required to serve".
Whatever meeting of the assembly he attends—whether one of the statutory meetings or any other business meeting that the assembly may hold—it starts the clock running all over again. If he attends a committee meeting or a meeting of some outside organisation as the representative of the assembly or the authority, then it counts in his favour. Once again, the clock begins to run.
The Minister attempted to draw an analogy between an assembly member and local authority members as provided for in Section 85 of the Local Government Act 1972. With the greatest respect, there is absolutely no relation between the two situations. Local councillors represent infinitely smaller constituencies than the 14 super constituencies that the Bill will create. Each of those local wards usually has two or three councillors, so that an absent member can be covered by a colleague. Here, the constituents will be effectively disfranchised.
In my view, there is no reason to establish two different scales of permitted absenteeism. So the same period should also apply to the so-called London members elected on their party ticket. Here again, the difference between us and the Government is just a question of numbers. The Government offer an assembly member a generous six absences whereas we and our colleagues on the Liberal Democrat side say that three is enough.
The job of governing London is not a part-time job either for the mayor or for a member of the assembly. We do not want an assembly which is a mere talking shop, whose members drop in when they have nothing better to do. We also do not want a mayor who is supposed to be accountable to the assembly but who can treat it with total disdain by ignoring seven-eighths of its statutory meetings during his term.
The amended periods of absences that we have proposed are more than adequate. Except in cases of illness, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, pointed out, when there might well be a need to have a few absences, if a person really cannot guarantee to give the time, he should not offer himself as a candidate.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I support the group of amendments, which are reasonable, sensible and, under the circumstances of the Greater London authority, necessary. As others said and we discussed at Committee stage, the provisions in the Bill are based on the current law and practice in local government. I know them well and have had to use them on a number of occasions, so many occasions that for the first and only time in my local government career, I knew the practice rather better than

245
the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton. It is the only time I am willing to acknowledge that I have been right and she has been wrong.
The provision permits local authorities to give consent to the absence of a councillor for longer than six months. They will do so if it is seen to be for good reasons, the most obvious being illness, but there are others. In my 25 years in local government I have known that happen on quite a number of occasions. I have never known it to be refused. No doubt it has been refused somewhere, but that is the exception rather than the rule. Where an application is made for leave of absence for a demonstrably good reason, regardless of party politics, generally the body concerned will grant it. That is the situation referred to under Amendments Nos. 15 and 20. In other words, it is not automatic that if for any reason someone fails to attend a meeting within the specified period he or she is disqualified. It is not mandatory, there is a discretion on the assembly. In my experience, if there is a good reason, the body will exercise its discretion.
We come to the crucial point in the amendments: should it be six months, as is the provision for local government, or three months, as we propose? There are a number of reasons why I think it should be three. First, the Government have told us continually and probably rightly that the Greater London authority is not local government. It is not regional government either, it is unique. Therefore, it follows logically that we should have a unique provision.
It is unique in that it will be the first authority in the country to have a directly elected mayor with a high profile and considerable personal powers, unlike the situation anywhere else in the country. It is therefore reasonable to have a different provision with regard to his or her absence from that which applies to any other borough or district councillor anywhere in the country. Those people are in a different position. For a mayor to be absent without good reason and the consent of the assembly for a period of longer than three months—I believe it is unlikely to happen—would be serious and a situation for which provision should be made.
I turn to the assembly. There will be 25 assembly members, half the number of the smallest London borough council The assembly members will be full-time, unlike most London borough or any other councillors. They will have heavy and important duties both on the assembly and, most of them, on the functional bodies. For them to go absent without good reason for a period of six months would be very serious indeed for the workings of the assembly and the effect on their colleagues in the assembly. That is qualitatively different from the position if one of 50 or more London borough councillors should be missing for six months.
Six months is much too long a period, especially in a four-year term of office. It is reasonable to provide that three months should be the maximum unless there is a good and unavoidable reason for a longer period of absence—for example, illness. Should that happen, the assembly will have the power to give consent to that absence. In my 25 years' experience of local government I know that under those circumstances consent would generally be given.
I hope that the Government will consider the amendment seriously. It is reasonable and sensible and, given the circumstances of the Greater London authority,
246
it is necessary. If we are left with the six-month period of absence it could have a serious effect on the government of London.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, some interesting points have been made. However, I still do not believe there is a convincing argument as to why assembly men and women should be treated differently from councillors throughout the land. Six months has long been the position there and there are local authorities of varying sizes and electorates. As the noble Lord, Lord Tope said, London is unique but there is no point in applying different rules to London from elsewhere just for the sake of it.
As regards the mayor, I can see that there are different arguments but we are in a unique situation in relation to the mayor. We considered that the six-month period was appropriate and a single absence of six months still seems to me to be the sensible position.
I take some of the points made by the noble Baroness in relation to the roll-on effect and how much, theoretically at least, it could mean throughout the mayoral term. I am not entirely convinced that we need to alter this to take account of an unlikely situation, but in relation to the mayor I am willing to consider it seriously.
If we accepted the amendments as they stand, we would have a potentially worse situation from the noble Baroness's point of view because theoretically at least, the assembly could concede that the mayor should not even attend after the six months. Whatever the level, three or six months, the assembly could give leave to him not to attend after that. Therefore, I do not believe that the amendments as they stand would meet either of the Opposition Benches' points. If the assembly were to collude with the mayor, it could allow the mayor to fail to attend for yet more meetings.
There is an issue in relation to the roll-on effect which I ought to consider further. But I would not be prepared to support the amendments as they stand.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, with the leave of the House and before the noble Lord sits down, I know we are at Report stage but it is important. The Minister said that he would consider the question of the mayor and I am sure he is right to do that. Some very good arguments have been made. He said that he saw no valid reason why the assembly members should be treated any differently from members of local government. When the Minister reads what the noble Lord, Lord Tope, has said, he will find that there are valid reasons. I suggest that he considers them.
It is important to get this right; it is not a difficult adjustment to make. The Minister may have considered this very carefully indeed or he may not: I do not know. He may be defending his position until he reads what Hansard says. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, made one or two very good points about the assembly members and. I hope that the Minister will look at those as well.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I hope that this is something to which the Government will give a little further thought.
The position may not arise so far as the mayor is concerned, although it is possible that it will. It is fairly likely, however, that a member of the assembly will, over a

247
period of four years, be in the position when perhaps illness or some other good cause will make attendance difficult but where, just as with local government councillors, it would be appropriate for there to be a mechanism to allow that person to remain in office.
The Minister has laid great stress on the rules applying to members of the assembly not being different to those applying to members of local authorities, including London boroughs. I believe that there should be no difference in respect of the way an absence is considered, as a quite separate matter from the length of time concerned.
When, as I hope will happen after this stage of the Bill, the Minister looks at how this applies, I would be interested to know how the proposed alterations to Clause 44 will affect the position which allows the assembly to meet more often than once a month, because I believe that we need to consider these things together.
With regard to possible collusion between members of the assembly and the mayor, allowing the assembly to let the mayor off the hook and perhaps spend the period of office promoting London around the world or whatever, we have talked about what is likely, what is conceivable and so on. It is possible that the mayor might decide that his or her duties called for him or her to be away from London at all the relevant points. That does not dispose of the need for attendance at what, for the purposes of the Bill, we are still to call the "State of London debate" and the "People's question time". I do not think that what we are suggesting, therefore, is to allow the mayor to go off on a "jolly" for four years and never to pitch up facing the people of London.
I hope that we may have some news now and perhaps I should go on speaking for a moment. Nevertheless, I hope that the Government will consider the serious points which we are making. This is not an attempt to upset the structure of the Bill. It is an attempt to address likelihoods. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 16:
After Clause 7, insert the following new clause—
VACANCY CREATED BY MEMBER RESIGNING PARTY WHIP
(" . Any London member elected as a member of a registered political party who resigns his party whip shall be deemed to have created a vacancy.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, earlier this afternoon we dealt with the possible eventuality of needing to recall the mayor. We all expressed the hope and the belief that such a situation was unlikely to arise.
This amendment deals with a situation which from long political experience I believe is very likely to arise sooner or later. Again, a Bill which is extremely prescriptive is singularly silent on this particular point. That is, what happens if one of the members of the assembly taken from the party list subsequently resigns the party whip and ceases to be a member of that party?
The Greater London assembly will have 14 members elected from constituencies—very large constituencies. It can be argued quite legitimately there, as it is in respect of
248
Members of Parliament, that the people who vote for them vote for them as individuals; they are elected as individuals, albeit most of them on a party ticket. We could have a debate about whether they would or would not be there if they were not on that party ticket. There at least, however, there is a direct link with the electorate. People have voted for that individual and elected him or her. They should no more be obliged to resign should they change parties than they are in the other place. One might have a point of view about what is the ethical thing to do under such circumstances, but there are enough precedents to demonstrate that ethics do not always arise in such circumstances.
Here, however, we are talking about a group of people the like of whom do not yet exist anywhere else in British politics. These are people elected from party lists to give a party balance on the assembly. In other words, to ensure that the membership of the assembly as near as possible represents the proportion of votes cast across London for each party or group. They are people who will be there for no reason other than their membership of a political party and the position on the list on which that party has chosen to put them. That constitutes their legitimacy. They are there because people have voted for the party, not for the individual.
What we are trying to deal with here is a situation where an individual decides that he or she no longer wishes to represent that party and to be a member of that party within the assembly. We are not dealing with a case where the party expels that member. That was a point of difference we had with the Conservative amendment at the Committee stage. I did not agree with that because, if it were to deal with expulsion, the incentive to expel a troublesome member might be rather too tempting on occasion.
The situation with which we are dealing here is one where an elected assembly person from the list chooses no longer to be a member of the party from whose list he or she has been elected. When that situation arises—and I believe that it will arise, perhaps not in the first term but sooner or later—the individual who has been elected and put in that position solely because of having been put on a party list by that party will no longer be representing that party. The party will be deprived of that representation. The voters who have voted for that party in the expectation that they will have that proportional representation will then be deprived of that representation.
My Lords, that is a different situation from any other in the British political system, structured as it is at the moment. I forget Scotland and Wales. I should say in the English political system. It is a very important situation and one which should be dealt with.
We are dealing with it in the way suggested here. We believe that someone who loses his or her electoral or party legitimacy as a London member, should be deemed to have resigned and to have created a vacancy. I think that is the right and proper way to deal with the matter, and presumably the next person on the list would step in.
I again ask the Government, as I did on the question of recall, if they recognise that this is a situation which is likely to occur sooner or later but they do not like this particular

249
mechanism—though personally I think that it is the best one—will they tell me what mechanism they propose to deal with it when it does arise?
This extremely long, very prescriptive Bill is strangely silent on something which is not a remote possibility but which is a very likely event, sooner or later. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord 'Tope, is right that we had a very similar amendment to this at Committee stage, with the additional part relating to expulsion. On reflection, we decided that the Liberal amendment was better than ours and we dropped our amendment. It was the second of the two amendments I mentioned earlier to which my name was unfortunately not added because of a problem when we went to the Public Bill Office rather later than we should have done.
I do not wish to repeat everything that the noble Lord has said. There is one thing I would say, however. The noble Lord, whose party has far more enthusiasm for proportional representation than do I or my party, joined me at Committee stage in pointing out that there is a vast difference between a first-past-the-post Member of Parliament crossing the floor and a member who owes his election simply to being a representative not of the members of his constituency but of a political party.
The fiction that applies in parliamentary elections and local council elections—namely, that voters elect individuals and not parties—does not apply here because that is precisely what the electors are doing. First, they are told, or authorised, to vote for a candidate for the constituency in which they reside. Secondly, they are authorised by a combination of the provisions of Clause 4(1)(c) and Clause 4(5)(a) to vote for,
"a registered political party which has submitted a list of candidates".
As the noble Lord, Lord Tope, has already said, that is precisely the point. The London vote is for a party, not an individual. The parliamentary fiction does not apply.
This is supposed to be an election based on proportional representation, and the proportionality chosen by the electorate—I stress that—ceases to exist when a party representative simply changes sides.
Why is it that Clause 11 is devoted to the machinery for replacing a vacancy among London members, but the Government, judging by their response at an earlier stage, decline to accept that such a vacancy occurs when a member of the assembly ceases to be a member of the party that sent him to the assembly? Why does Clause 11(5) specifically provide that when a vacancy occurs among the London members, which must be filled from among the other members on the list, someone who is not a party member is not eligible as a replacement?
What is the reason for the Government's inconsistency in this matter? Having listened to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, to the Committee and studied it carefully in Hansard, I confess that I do not know. I cannot see it. It cannot be that they believe that under the benign dictatorship of their leader they are immune from defections from their party; certainly at local level, they are not. The noble Lord nods his head, but I am not sure that that is due to the note that he is reading or as a result of what I have said.
250
This amendment is not some devious plot on the part of the Opposition, including the Liberal Democrats, to damage the Bill; it is designed simply to correct an anomaly or to cure an oversight. The noble Lord criticised the Liberal Democrat amendment on the ground that a dissenter would not leave his party, but would simply ignore the Whip. He did not answer my amendment at all, except to repeat the entirely fallacious argument that people are to elect an individual, not a party. He prayed in aid the fact that it is only comparatively recently that party labels have been attached to candidates' names in Westminster and local elections. That was done precisely because it was realised that a large number of the voters did not have the foggiest idea who was the local candidate for the party of their choice, no matter how many posters went up in neighbours' windows or how many unread election leaflets fell onto their doormats, along with soap coupons and adverts from the local pizza delivery service. Three months after an election how many electors can tell you on the doorstep what party their member represents, much less his name? The election of a London member will take place not because of who he is, but because he is a member of a particular party. His individuality is absolutely irrelevant.
When the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, began his response to this debate in Committee, he admitted that he was "a little torn" on it. I assume that he meant that he agreed that the point had some merit. He said that he tended to think that if people left a party, there should be some sanctions, but that he thought our proposals were "pushing it a bit". But in this case he has missed the point. The sanction is not that the defector loses his seat; it is against the voters who lose one of their elected party representatives. It is not like an ordinary parliamentary constituency where the voter can take his problems to another Member of Parliament in a neighbouring constituency. There can be absolutely no reason at all why the voters who have elected somebody on a party ticket, not as a theoretical individual, should be deprived of part of their voice—perhaps of all of it if their party has only one London member—when an individual changes the party allegiance for which he was selected. I can only hope that the Government, having had time to reflect on what both I and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said in Committee, now accept this entirely constructive amendment.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, I very much regret that in this amendment I cannot support my noble friend Lady Miller or the noble Lord, Lord Tope, whose knowledge of local government matters I deeply respect. I had rather hoped that those who were elected would be London-wide members in the light of the normal convention that, however people are elected and by whatever means, they then become representatives of the people of the area. Surely it is not suggested that the London members should be purely nominees just to do the bidding of their party irrespective of the wishes or needs of the citizens of Greater London. If one does not like the party list, to argue that that should be the case is to argue for more power to the party in determining such matters.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, wants a mechanism to deal with this situation. I hope that we shall not have such a mechanism, but that in the interests of democracy (even if people are elected by a list submitted by their party). they

251
become members of the Greater London authority. If they fall out with their party, that is a problem for their party and its leaders. It is not for us to legislate that they be removed from the forum where they might express a strongly held view for the benefit of the citizens of Greater London.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am reminded of the old line:
"O what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive!"
The deception here is proportional representation. Having started down that road we encounter serious difficulties, such as the one your Lordships are considering this afternoon.
I take exception to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Tope. He said that we had no experience of these matters anywhere in the United Kingdom's political system. We do. We have already had the experience of Scotland and of Wales. During our Committee considerations of the Scotland and the Government of Wales Bills your Lordships looked at exactly these issues when considering the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. In particular, we discussed this matter in relation to the Scottish Parliament on 14th July 1998. We discussed it then in the context of two quite different problems. The first was the one that we are addressing today: the position of the additional members who are there only to keep proportionality, now so beloved of the Government as well as the Liberal Democrats. They are not there for any other reason.
Whether a party has two or three members is decided entirely on the basis of proportionality. The intention is to retain proportionality. The additional members are there for that purpose and do not represent anyone other than their party and proportionality. I am sorry to disagree with my noble friend. We may not like it, but that is the reality. The additional members are quite different from the first-past-the-post members. The governing party here and in Scotland has treated them differently when it comes to expenses. It has said that the first-past-the-post members will receive so much expenses and that the additional members will receive less. Somehow they are second-class members when it comes to representing constituents—because they do not have constituents in the same way. The system that has been devised in Scotland, Wales and now London has created two classes of member. I do not like it, but that is the reality.
The problems that your Lordships addressed in the Scotland Bill were even worse than the present ones. If one of the additional members had died, retired or resigned, the returning officer would have turned to the highest loser and asked whether that individual wished to take the seat. If he agreed, he would have taken the seat. He could have left the party by that time, but the legislation as originally drafted would have allowed it. Your Lordships forced the Government to change that. Clause 11(5) now appears in the Bill solely because we forced the Government to change their mind. The situation is that if the highest loser is no longer a member of the party, he or she is not elected.
Unfortunately, in the Scotland Bill we were so pleased with our success that we rather took our eye off the other half of this particular ball game, the one that has been
252
addressed today; namely, if somebody from that additional list leaves that party and crosses the floor, do we treat it in the same way as we treat first-past-the-post members, or do we accept that that has actually upset the very proportionality for which that individual was sent to the Parliament? That individual was not sent to Parliament for any other reason than proportionality.
I believe it is a serious defect in the system. I believe the system is defective, and inside the system there is a serious defect here. As the Bill, the Scotland Act and the Government of Wales Act have addressed the first problem—namely that nobody should inherit a seat if they have left the party whose seat it is—then I believe that nobody should be allowed to keep a seat if they change their place in the chamber, because they are only there to maintain that proportionality. If they move to the other side of the chamber they will have broken that proportionality.
I am afraid that this amendment is totally logical and it is totally at one with Clause 11(5). If my noble friend does not like it, it is because he does not like proportionality and proportional representation. In that I agree with him. I do not like it either. However, it is reality. It is what we have in Scotland and Wales. It is what London is going to have. I believe that we have to grope for ways to make the system as workable as possible. I think that this amendment ought to have been pressed in the Scottish and Welsh Bills. It was not, and I take my share of responsibility for that. I certainly hope that, if it is pressed today by the Liberal Democrats, even though we profoundly disagree on the principle of proportional representation, it will be passed by your Lordships.
6 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I simply cannot agree with my noble friend Lady Miller that because you fundamentally disagree with somebody you lose your seat. We know that proportional representation is a rotten system. If we think in this House that it is a rotten system, which we do because it produces people like Adolf Hitler who, as your Lordships are well aware, was voted into power perfectly legitimately under proportional representation, why should we even attempt to make it better? Why should we attempt to make it better by a method of democratic centralism which provides that you cannot do anything other than I say you can do? This is a deeply, deeply illiberal amendment.
I am sorry to say this and disagree with my noble friends. My noble friend Lord Mackay is saying that it is a bad system and that we might make it better. I think that it is a system which is not made any better by doing anything to it at all and that we should allow people to have some sense of their own consciences. What happens, for instance, if someone is a totally rebellious Tory, Liberal, Labour, Independent, Scottish National, Green or whatever in London? He does not resign, he just persistently votes the other way. Is his party going to have the right to expel him? All he does, if he has an ounce of noodle in his head, is not to resign the Whip. He just behaves as if he has and keeps the Whip.
This is giving too much control to party power. I do not like it, and for Tories who believe in freedom and for Liberals to agree with something like this seems to be going

253
against all of our ancient and good traditions—the best traditions of Gladstone or of Lord Salisbury, whose excellent biography I am now reading. To find myself in support of the Labour Party is such a painful experience.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with both my noble friends who spoke about democracy of the individual. The trouble is, as we have seen with the Scottish Parliament, this is the system we now have. My noble friend said that it does not matter at all who the member is; the members are just there for the party. Alas, that is the position the Government have accepted, as have the Liberal Democrats.
I wonder whether, quite apart from paying less expenses to the list members, it would not be cheaper still just to have buttons which one presses to vote. There is very little point in being there at all if you cannot do anything your party does not want.
The other point to make is that there is no way for list members to use clout against their party to try and tell them they are wrong and persuade them to change. On a number of occasions in local government I remember saying I was going to resign as the chairman of a committee or as a member if it did not do this, that or the other, or that I would change parties. If you move from one party to another in this assembly, no clout at all remains with you. You have no sanction. Nevertheless, this is the system we have and we have to get it to work.
I forget whether, when the Scotland. Bill was going through this House, anyone raised the question of the human rights of the 'individual. I do not know whether the Convention on Human Rights would make it difficult to legislate for someone to have to resign if they moved party. It seems to me it is a limitation on human rights. It is a question that the Government may have looked at and, if they have not, they probably should.
I think we have to go along with this amendment. In this assembly, I think that the system becomes more and more unfortunate and less and less democratic. The Liberal Democrats are being logical. They do not mind who is in the assembly. They just mind that they are there because they belong to a particular party and they are the ones the party happens to have picked out. The electorate can only tell what the balance of the assembly is.
I say that we have to go along with this—I say so with a heavy heart—simply to be logical. Your Lordships usually try to be logical when they are improving a Bill.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, with regard to the argument that has been advanced, the emphasis has been on the party. If they had been elected by way of proportional representation, then their loyalty is to the party. The amendment, as I understand it, is that if someone leaves the party and crosses the floor then of course they are no longer entitled to retain their seat. What would happen if the party machine does not like an individual and takes away that individual's membership, or indeed takes away that individual's Whip? Then that person is persona non grata. That is a power for the
254
machine to institute disciplines, beyond the level of democracy in my view, to ensure that that individual no longer is a representative of the people who elected him.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, on that last point., the possibility of party discipline being, shall we say, over-strengthened would arise if the words "if a member were thrown out of his party shall be deemed to have created a vacancy" were in the amendment, but that is not there. This particular amendment is very specifically drawn so that it applies only to an individual who, of his own volition, decides that he wishes to leave his party. There is nothing in this specific amendment which would give the party machine any greater authority over its members than it already has.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, that should teach my noble friend not to make jokes on the basis of his experience as an old apparatchik. He ceased to be one some time ago. As the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and my noble friend Lord Davies of Coity—who I think must have been as surprised as the noble Earl to find himself on the same side—said it gives enormous power.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, that is the point. In this House we can have very odd bedfellows (if that is the right use of the word).
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, it is indeed. The noble Lord referred rightly to the fact that those who wished for the democratic centralism to which the noble Earl referred would very much like this power.
As noble Lords have said, the amendment returns to an issue debated at earlier stages. The Government continue to believe that it would be impractical to implement the proposals set out in the amendment. A dissident member of a registered party who stood to lose his or her assembly seat by resigning the Whip would surely simply not resign. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, referred to the question of ethics. But that would not arise because the person who was prepared voluntarily to face the electorate would not be in this position. Therefore, we are dealing with those who do not want to resign their seat.
From the debate, it is clear that, in the view of those who support the amendment, the provision should never be used for those who have been sacked. A case has not been made to justify those who take the specific action of resigning the Whip—for whatever reason and however honourably—to be forced to do so; while those who refuse to do so—however dishonourably it may appear in individual cases—are not affected.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, on the basis of that argument, the Government should be moving to delete subsection (5). Exactly those rules will apply to the next highest loser if a vacancy occurs. The party will be asked whether that person is still a member of the party. If it is good enough to be a test for whether the next highest loser can come into the Parliament, it is good enough for someone who is already there.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the noble Lord is well aware that we are dealing with two separate

255
matters: the process whereby someone becomes a representative (whether of a parliament, local authority or an assembly); and what they become at the point they accept office. I, and noble Lords with more distinguished careers in local government than mine, recognise that at the point where the electoral process had been completed, he or she began to represent all those who had been involved in that election process. That is the position that the Government take.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we are not talking about local government, but about additional members. I may be wrong, but I do think that any local government body in England has been elected by the additional member system of proportionality. The Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly are so elected. The London body will be quite different.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, if the noble Lord reads Hansard, he will find that I said that it is regardless of which type of election and to which body the person is elected. It is a process that allows that person to accept office. I repeat the point. It is the Government's view that regardless of what happens during that process, at the point that that person accepts office, his position changes. What would happen is that a dissident member would refuse to toe the party line, or resign the Whip, and yet maintain his position.
We opposed these amendments when they were first considered in another place. We continue to oppose them. I hope that the noble Baroness will choose not to press them.
I have been asked what the Government would put in place. The Government take the view that the issue that is being dealt with in these amendments is a dangerously centralising one, giving far too much power to political parties. It is a quite clear convention that a sitting representative, whether a Member of Parliament or a councillor, has an identity and role regardless of the process used in terms of party affiliation.
London members, through whichever electoral procedures they are elected, will be elected to represent the strategic interests of all Londoners. The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, is right in regard to the responsibilities people have.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, asked about the remuneration of Members serving in the Scottish Parliament. Knowing his support for the principle of devolution to Scotland, I am sure he would be appalled were Ito rise to that bait and deal with the internal affairs of the Scottish Parliament and its decisions. I think that it would be wrong for us to interfere in the way suggested in the amendment. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw it.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Tope: My Lords, the amendment has provoked a most interesting debate. I am sorry that it has divided the Conservative Party. I have spent most of my adult life trying to divide the Conservative Party, usually unsuccessfully. On this occasion, I seem to have provoked it without intending to do so.
256
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, for his eloquent support, and his experience in Scotland and Wales. I apologise if I gave another impression when I referred to Britain. As I said it, especially looking at the noble Lord, I realised that I meant England. I think that I corrected what I said. If I gave offence to Scotland or Wales, it was unintentional and I apologise.
Perhaps I may disagree with the noble Lord on one point. He said that what we have now is an inevitable consequence of proportional representation. That is not true. It is rubbish. It is an inevitable consequence of this system of proportional representation. If he would like me to give your Lordships a lecture on the differences of proportional representation, I shall do so; but I can see that he does not. The system for this election, as for Scotland and Wales, is not one favoured by the Liberal Democrats. We favoured a system of proportional representation which would not have led to these consequences. So from that point of view, I find myself in exactly the same position as the Conservative Members who are supporting this amendment. It is not a system we would have chosen, or wished for; but we have it and we have to make it work. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, made the point well.
A number of speakers, including, surprisingly, the Minister replying, referred to giving too much power to the party and the party machine. We have had talk about democratic centralism. Talking about democratic centralism at the same time as referring to apparatchiks must cause a few twinges! It is to misunderstand the amendment. That was exactly the reason why we disagreed with the earlier amendment from Members on the Conservative Front Bench, as they have readily acknowledged and recognised. Their amendment provided that if someone were expelled from the party, he or she should have to resign. We disagreed with that for exactly the reasons others have given: that that would provide too much power to a party machine to deal with difficult and troublesome people.
This amendment does not refer to party power, but to the individual choice of the assembly member. It is nothing to do with the party. If the assembly member chooses to leave one party and join another party, or no party, that is that individual's choice. It is nothing to do with the party. If an assembly member knew that if he changed party or left the party from whose list he had been elected he would have to leave his seat on the assembly, that may well be a disincentive to change party. I acknowledge that and it is true. It will be troublesome for the party concerned, which I also acknowledge. Others have said that it is a problem which the party managers will have to deal with. That is also true. That situation may well occur. It is something we shall have to deal with. However, this amendment deals solely with a situation where an individual assembly member, elected for no other reason—
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I realise the subtlety in the difference between someone choosing to leave and someone being pressured to do so. But in the field of industrial relations, particularly as regards the legislation covering that subject, there is a term called "constructive dismissal". A situation could arise where one says it is only through choice that one leaves, but the pressure could be

257
such that the person concerned did not really have a true choice. I understand the subtlety of the situation, but I am not sure that the arrangement would work as perfectly as the noble Lord has suggested.
Lord Tope: My Lords, if we were ever in such a situation I suspect that there would be nothing very subtle about it. I also understand what constructive dismissal means in terms of industrial relations. I have no doubt that if we come to such a situation, all kinds of pressures will be placed on an individual assembly member under the circumstances. However, it will still be the choice of the assembly member. An assembly member elected by whatever means, but in this case through a party list, will not be in the same position as an employee in an employment situation. I do not believe that it is a close analogy.
We are speaking about an individual decision taken by an assembly member from the party list. Should the member take a decision that he or she does not wish to be a member of a particular party, but perhaps wishes to join another, then the effect of that decision is to destroy the proportionality in the assembly which the whole system has been designed to achieve. I cannot imagine it ever happening, but if a Liberal Democrat London member from the list suddenly had an aberration and decided to become a Conservative and joined that party, that would immediately upset the balance between the members. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, it would upset the balance to a much greater extent than would be the case in the Scottish Parliament, because we have only 25 members in total in the assembly. I have not done the arithmetic, but it makes a significant difference to the party balance. In one step it would destroy the purpose of having proportionality, even in this imperfect system.
This is a serious point. I am sorry that some noble Lords, including Members of the Government Front Bench, have misunderstood its purpose. It has nothing to do with party power, democratic centralism, but it is concerned with achieving the Government's objective of giving the Greater London assembly a proportionate membership which reflects the votes of Londoners. I shall not press the amendment on this occasion. I hope, having explained the amendment carefully and clearly, that the Government will reflect further on it. We shall certainly do so. I feel sure that we shall return to it in one way or another at Third Reading. I look forward to the Government's amendment for that purpose. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 [Date of casual vacancies]:
Lord Whitty,Lord Whitty, moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 5, line 27, at end insert—
("(aa) in the ease of any person being returned as mentioned in section 16(10) below, on the date on which he is returned to fill the vacancy in the Assembly constituency;")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I speak also to Amendments Nos. 23 and 24. They are quite straightforward. They attempt to rectify an inconsistency which has been referred to earlier. At the moment, the Bill prevents a person standing as a candidate to fill a vacancy in the office of mayor if he or she is also a candidate to fill a vacancy in an assembly constituency. I
258
appreciate that certain noble Lords were against the prohibition as regards an ordinary election, but we have passed that point. If we are in favour of that prohibition concerning an ordinary election, as the Bill now provides, then, on reflection, we consider it not sensible or consistent to prohibit it as regards a by-election.
Therefore the amendments provide for a candidate to stand for both offices. In the unlikely circumstances where a candidate is successful in both elections, it provides for a vacancy to occur within the assembly and for the procedures for a further by-election to be put in hand. That is consistent with the earlier part of the Bill, which has been agreed to. I hope that noble Lords will accept this amendment.
On Question, amendment. agreed to.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 6, line 11, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert ("give public notice of any casual vacancy among the Assembly members, and shall also convey such notice in writing to the Greater London returning officer")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as presently drafted, when a casual vacancy occurs in the assembly, Clause 9(2) requires a proper officer of the authority to issue written notice to the returning officer if the vacancy occurs among London members and a public notice if the vacancy occurs among the constituency members. What the Bill does not require is for the public to receive any notice when a London member's place becomes vacant. This amendment is tabled in order to cure that defect. The Government rejected this simple amendment at Committee stage because the vacancy among London members would be filled by the next person on the party list, so that no by-election would be held.
The Minister said that public notice was not necessary. Even if one were to accept that assumption and agree with the rather startling proposition that it is unnecessary for the electorate to be told who their representatives are, it is also not unnecessary, if a double negative is acceptable. The Minister claimed that public notice will have been given in effect by the publication of the party lists at the time of the preceding ordinary election. That is not a credible argument.
The Bill does not even require that the public should be told that a casual vacancy has occurred. An ordinary nonpolitical member of the public is unlikely to remember the sequence of persons appearing on the party list a week after the election, let alone a couple of years later. Giving the public notice of the name of the new London assembly member will cost next to nothing either in money or effort.
The proper approach to this amendment should be "Why not"? rather than "Why should we?" The public have the right to know the names of their representatives. They should be told in the simplest and most expeditious way without being obliged to go scrabbling through back numbers of local papers. The Labour Party claims to be the party of open government. In this case, let it match its words with deeds not merely by providing open government but by ensuring that the governed know who their governors are. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in this context, "public notice" means effectively the public notice of an election. An

259
election is not required as regards filling a vacancy in the list system for the London-wide seats. The names of the candidates for the seats will have been promulgated at the previous election as I said earlier.
It would require a wholly different system of notice to do what the noble Lord wishes. I am sure that, were a vacancy to occur in the 25-member assembly, normal coverage of that fact in the media and in political communications would be made. Therefore, it is unlikely that the electorate in London and those who are paying attention to the activities of the assembly—a higher proportion, we hope, than currently pay attention to local elections—would not notice when there was a change in their representation. It is my belief that the media would draw attention to the change in representation both at the creation of the vacancy and as regards the name of the person to fill it.
I do not think that the terms of the amendment would achieve what the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith seeks to do. I believe that an alternative means of public communication is unnecessary in this case.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, it may well be that the reality of the modern world and modem communications would suggest that in fact the media at large would take note of what was happening and would report on the loss of a member and on the appointment of his successor. I certainly would not dissent from that particular series of events. But it seems to me a novel departure for local government in this situation to rely informally on the media to report and record what is in fact a very formal change.
It was with that situation in mind that the amendment was tabled. I am sorry to disagree with the Minister on the subject but I believe that the matter should be properly dealt with and published by the proper authorities. That said, we have had a lot of discussion this evening and we shall consider the matter further. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 [Failure to attend meetings]:
[Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 21:
Alter Clause 13, insert the following new clause—
MAYOR'S ATTENDANCE AT STATE OF LONDON DEBATE
(".—(1) Subject to subsection (2), if the Mayor fails to attend a meeting in accordance with section 39 below he shall be disqualified from being the Mayor.
(2) The Mayor's failure to refer to the meeting the subject of section 39 below as a "State of London debate" shall not in the absence of any other failure cause his disqualification.")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 140 to 145, two of which—Amendments Nos. 141 and 143—are government amendments.
The amendments are tabled in this way on the Marshalled List—and I am sure that the Government spotted this—because we did not know until late into the day the welcome news that the Government accept our point about the terms to be applied to the "State of London
260
debate", as it is referred to in the Bill, and indeed, later, the "People's Question Time". They will have spotted that Amendment No. 21 is a rather artificial amendment which might have allowed us to troop through the Lobbies again before dinner-time, had we needed to press the point.
We had some fun, though on a serious subject, at the last stage. I am glad that the Government have agreed with us. I suspect that neither Minister would much have relished defending the position that they were forced to defend on the last occasion. I shall not say more about that, because I believe that it would be proper for the Minister to speak to the two government amendments. I look forward to hearing what they have to say about Amendments Nos. 141 and 143. I simply say that I note that in Amendment No. 143, allowing someone who may or may not have a connection with the authority, they have produced what I can only term the "Let's have John Humphrys as chair" provision. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. We have sought to listen and have on many occasions proved that we listen carefully.
We listened to the views expressed in Committee, and therefore government Amendment No. 141 removes the requirement to use the name while leaving it as a defined term in the Bill. We believe that that offers the best of both worlds, because it does not prescribe what the meeting should be called but leaves the term in the legislation as a clear steer as to the spirit of the event. Amendment No. 143 also responds directly to concerns raised in Committee, particularly by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, that the clause did not specify that members of the public should be able to participate in the debate.
The amendment places a duty on the mayor to decide the form of and procedure for the debate following consultation with the assembly, and it clarifies that that must include an opportunity for members of the public to speak, and also that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, a person not connected with the authority may be appointed to chair the meeting. We all know that, occasionally, we who are politicians may not attract such great interest from the public as might certain other figures chairing a meeting. We have listened and responded to concerns expressed in Committee, and brought forward what I hope are suitable amendments. We hope that, in the light of that, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, we thank the Government for listening. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 21.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 [Declaration of vacancy in certain cases]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 8, line 15, at end insert ("or
(c) is the subject of a vote of no confidence by not less than nineteen Assembly members,")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 15 [Date of casual vacancy]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 8, line 21, leave out ("paragraph (a)") and insert —("paragraphs (a) and (aa)")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 [Filling a vacancy]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 9, line 24, leave out subsection (10) and insert—
("(10) If

(a) a person who is a candidate in an election to fill a vacancy in the office of Mayor is also a candidate in an election to fill a vacancy in an Assembly constituency, and

(b) that person is returned in both elections, but

(c) the circumstances are such that a vacancy does not arise in the Assembly constituency by virtue of section 8 above,

a vacancy shall arise in the Assembly constituency.")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Amendments of the Representation of the People Acts]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 212, line 30. at end insert—
("Requirement of secrecy
—(1) Section 66 shall be amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (6) there shall be added—
"(7) In their application in relation to an election of the London members of the London Assembly at an ordinary election, the preceding provisions of this section shall have effect with the insertion, after the words -the candidate for whom", in each place where they occur, of ", or the registered political party towards the return of whose candidates,".
(8) In relation to an election of the London members of the London Assembly at an ordinary election, any reference in this section to the return of a registered political party's candidates is a reference to the return of candidates included in the list of candidates submitted by the registered political party for the purposes of the election.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, because of its length, this group of amendments looks more daunting than it actually is. I understand that because of the length of the list, noble Lords may wish to speak to separate amendments in their place on the Marshalled List.
The purpose of the majority of the amendments is simple. They amend I he provisions of the Representation of the People Act 1983 to take account of the new electoral system which will be used during the GLA elections. Amendment No. 25 extends to the GLA elections the application of the rules of secrecy of voting set out in Clause 66 of the 1983 Act.
Amendment No. 26 puts on to the face of the Bill the limit on the amount of personal money which a mayoral candidate may spend at an election. Paragraph 17 of Schedule 3 already establishes the limits for assembly members. We believe that our proposed figure of £5,000 is reasonable, given the size of the electorate which each candidate will need to address, and the number of individual communities which the population of the capital has formed. The £5,000 personal expenses limit is in addition to the campaign expenditure limits we propose to set, about which we shall be consulting the parties shortly.
The remaining amendments deal with a range of technical issues. I should like to single out Amendment No. 34. which adds to the provisions of Section 85 specific
262
provisions in relation to the mayor. It provides that if the required returns and declarations are not delivered by the mayor before the expiry of the appropriate time limit, the mayor shall be disqualified from office. It also provides that the mayor will be entitled to apply for relief against that qualification under Section 86 of the 1983 Act. The amendment does not specify for how long such a disqualification should apply. We shall be bringing forward amendments during Third Reading to rectify that omission.
As I said, the amendments in this group are simply designed to adapt the Representation of the People Act 1983 to fit the new electoral systems which we are proposing. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, these amendments are obviously very necessary, but it is quite difficult for those of us who have only just seen them to know what the noble Baroness is doing. Will she tell us why the amendments have not been introduced into the Bill until now?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, in terms of the rules of procedure, may I clarify with the noble Baroness that she intends to answer that particular question?
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will wait until she sums up to tell me the answer to that.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, as the noble Baroness said, this is indeed a fairly wide-ranging group of amendments and I intend to get to my feet fairly often during the course of this debate to explore some of the individual aspects on individual amendments.
We have received very little explanation from the noble Baroness as to what all these amendments are about. Indeed, some of them have not been mentioned by her at all, even in passing. Therefore, when we come to them individually, where I feel that there is a question that needs an answer and where their application is not entirely obvious, I will raise the question at that time.
It might now be sensible for me to address myself to the first amendment—Amendment No. 26—on which I do have some questions. That amendment sets the amount of personal expenses allowed to a mayor of London. I think we ought to have some justification for this figure. If one draws a line in relation to the size of electorates and the sort of campaigning which is likely to be necessary for a mayor to do, let alone the travelling that is likely to be necessary for a mayoral candidate to do, and sets that in relation to the level of personal expenses allowed for a general election to a candidate in a constituency in merely a small part of this area, the amount seems extremely low.
I would like to understand in some detail how the Government think that the figure of £5,000 can be justified in relation not to some earlier decision taken on the same Bill—I cannot say that I understood quite how those figures were justified—but in relation to a parliamentary election, which I think will be on much more the sort of scale that we are expecting for a mayoral election; something which

263
is wide ranging and involves a lot of travelling and public debate and activity. In the context of a constituency the size of London, £5,000 seems extremely low.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, in response to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, we have discussed and considered in detail some of the points to which these amendments refer. That is one of the reasons for the amendments. Should there be further reasons, I shall let her know. During the course of this debate, should there be any point which I fail to clarify to her satisfaction, I shall be only too happy to answer her in writing.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has slightly misunderstood the position regarding the £5,000. That is a personal expenses limit, not a campaign expenditure limit. I fear that he was comparing the expenditure with that for the campaign. However, London is a far larger constituency than any other and far larger than a parliamentary constituency, as the noble Lord said, with 5 million voters. We shall consult widely about the overall campaign expenditure, and I hope that answer will satisfy the noble Lord. The points made by the noble Lord will be very valid when we come to consider the campaign expenditure as opposed to the personal expenditure.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I accept gratefully what she says about consultation. Will the noble Baroness give the House any indication as to the factors that may be taken, or may be required to be taken, into consideration at that stage?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, it would be invidious to start to single out certain factors that would be taken into account. Since we shall consult parties, I am quite sure that, in line with their normal practice, the Government will take into consideration all valid points that are put to them.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 215, line 21, at end insert—
("(aa) the amount which a candidate at an election of the Mayor of London may pay shall not exceed £5,000,")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendments Nos. 27 to 29:
Page 215, line 27, after ("(a),") insert ('(aa),")
Page 215, line 30, leave out ("at an ordinary election")
Page 215, line 31, after ("treated") insert—

("(a) if one of them is an election of the Mayor of London, as if they together constituted a single election falling within paragraph (aa) of that subsection, and

(b) in any other case,")

On Question, amendments agreed to.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 29A:
Page 215, line 32, at end insert—
("Prohibition of expenses not authorised by election agent
.—(1) Section 75 shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) (which prohibits the incurring of certain expenses by any person other than the candidate, his agent or persons authorised in writing by the agent)—

(a) after "promoting or procuring the election of a candidate" there shall be inserted "(or. in the case of an election of the London members of the London Assembly at an ordinary election, a registered political party or candidates of that party)"; and

(b) at the end of paragraph (c) there shall be added "; or

(d) in the case of an election of the London members of the London Assembly at an ordinary election, of otherwise presenting to the electors the candidate's registered political party (if any) or the views of that party or the extent or nature of that party's backing or disparaging any other registered political party"; and.

(c) after the words "but paragraph (c)" there shall be inserted "or (d)".

(3) After subsection (I) there shall be inserted—
"(1A) In the application of subsection (I) above in relation to an election of the London members of the London Assembly at an ordinary election, any reference to the candidate includes a reference to all or any of the candidates of a registered political party."
(4) After subsection (IA) there shall be inserted—
"(1B) In its application in relation to an Authority election, subsection (1)(ii) above shall have effect—

(a) with the substitution for the monetary sum there specified of such sum as the Secretary of State may prescribe in an order made by statutory instrument; and

(b) in the case of an election of the London members of the London Assembly at an ordinary election, with the omission of the words from "and are" to "others".

(1C) Different sums may be prescribed under subsection (IB)(a) above in relation to—

(a) an election of the Mayor of London:

(b) an election of a constituency member of the London Assembly; and

(c) an election of the London members of the London Assembly at an ordinary election."

(5) At the end of the section there shall be added—
"(7) For the purposes of this section, in the case of an election of the London members of the London Assembly at an ordinary election, a candidate's registered political party is the registered political party (if any) which submitted for the purposes of that election a list of candidates on which the candidate in question is included.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment, as do the other amendments, brings into line the normal practice for elections. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendments Nos. 29B to 29D:
Page 216, line 27, leave out ("after") and insert—
("(a) for").
Page 216, line 28, leave out ("inserted "(a),") and insert ("substituted "74(1)(a), (aa),").
Page 216, line 28, at end insert ("; and
(b) after ''75(1) above" there shall be inserted ", a sum prescribed under section 75(1B)(a) above"").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No.30:
Page 216, line 33, at end insert —
("Return as to election expenses
.—(1) Section 81 shall be amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (I) (which allows 35 days after the day of the declaration for the making of the return) there shall be inserted—
"(1A) Subsection (1) above—

(a) in its application in relation to an election of the Mayor of London. shall have effect with the substitution for "35 days" of "70 days"; and

(b) in its apple cat ion in relation to the election of the London members of the London Assembly at an ordinary election, shall have effect with the substitution for "35 days after the day on which the result of the election is declared" of "70 days after the day on which the last of the successful candidates at the election is declared to be returned."

(3) After subsection (5) there shall be inserted—
"(6) Where a registered political party submits a list of two or more candidates to be London members of the London Assembly at an ordinary election, the preceding provisions of this section shall have effect in relation to those candidates and their election agent with the following modifications.
(7) The return which the election agent is required to deliver under subsection (1) above—

(a) shall be in respect of all those candidates; and

(b) shall be in the form set out for the purpose in rules under section 36(2A) above or to the like effect.

(8) If any payments made by the election agent were in respect of two or more candidates, the return shall deal under a separate heading or subsection with all such payments, and the expenses to which they relate, in respect of those candidates.
(9) The statements which the return is required to contain by virtue of subsection (3) above in respect of the matters there mentioned shall be a separate statement of each such matter as respects each of the candidate in question.
(10) If and to the extent that any such matter is referable to two or more candidates together, the return shall contain a separate statement of that limner as respects those candidates.
(11) Where one of the candidates is the election agent, subsection (4) above shall have effect, as respects that candidate, as it has effect where a candidate is his own election agent.".").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, for the benefit of the House, I remind the House that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, indicated to me that he and other noble Lords may wish to ask questions on amendments as we reach their place in the Marshalled List. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the facet of this amendment which principally concerns me is the extension of the time limit from 35 to 70 days for getting together one's return of expenses. That seems to me to allow the matter to be dragged out for an astonishingly long time. I believe that, in an election which is fought principally by well-organised parties, it should not take more than about seven to 14 days to put together a reasonable schedule of expenses. To allow 35 days as in parliamentary elections would seem reasonable because one expects that individual candidates will be taking part. To extend it to 70 days merely because it involves a wider spread of the electorate seems entirely without justification. If the expenses for each individual constituency can be compiled within 35 days, it cannot take more than an hour or two to add them all together and hand them in as a bulk lot. I do not see any justification for this extension of time limit. I wonder why the noble Baroness believes that a 70-day time limit for getting together figures—something which would not be accepted in any business—should be allowable in a matter of government.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that a period of 70 days seems to be very long. My first thought was to ask whether, if for practical reasons, the period has to be extended, 70 days is the tight period. It is 10 weeks, but it is not naturally a period that one may easily calculate. However, that is a minor point. It is a long period and it is desirable that any questions that arise over expenses should be dealt with quickly. It is not good for such matters to drag on. Can the noble Baroness tell the House what period applies in the case of elections to the European Parliament, which is the nearest equivalent we have?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I believe that the period is considerably longer. However, I hope to be more specific than that and I shall write to the noble Baroness with a detailed response.
It is difficult to make a judgment. We take the matter seriously in terms of a desire to operate to the highest standards. Seventy days is a reasonable period, and it is right that disqualification would follow. This will be a different kind of election from that for a constituency in terms of the complexity of ensuring that election expenses are accurate. The area is larger and there is a need for parties to be accurate within that. For that reason, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will overcome any hesitation he may have, and agree that to reduce the period below 70 days could lead to a degree of hastiness.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, does she agree that, in the days of properly programmed computers, it should not be difficult to keep the period to the original figure of 35 days?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. However, I remind the House that the situation is unique in the sense that, under the Government's policy, candidates will be able to stand for election both to the assembly and as mayor. For that reason, it is extremely important that adequate time—not

267
too great a period, but adequate time—is given to ensure that election expense returns are accurate to the highest possible standard.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I think I should have intervened before the Minister sat down. If the Minister considers it important that a period of 35 days does not appear to be enough, how is it possible that the provision has only just now appeared before us in this amendment? The Bill has gone through the House of Commons—through its Committee stage, Report stage and Third Reading. It has been through Committee here. Why have the Government decided, with very little notice, that they want to change the provision to 70 days? This is a matter that could have come forward much earlier.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, we have ensured, in great depth, that comments received from a wide variety of sources—not only during the passage of the Bill in Parliament but also from sources outside—have been taken into account. I would say particularly to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, that this Government seek to be a listening government. In that context, I hope that she will agree that it has been wise for us to have listened carefully and to have taken particularly into account representations that have been made concerning the complexities involved for those who may stand as candidates in two simultaneous elections.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, would she be kind enough to write to tell me what those representations have been?
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 216, line 35, at end insert—
("( ) In subsection (1) (declaration by agent) for "the form in Schedule 3 to this Act" there shall be substituted "the appropriate form".
( ) In subsection (2) (declaration by candidate) for "the form in that Schedule" there shall be substituted "the appropriate form".
( ) After subsection (2) there shall be inserted—
"(2A) For the purposes of subsections (1) and (2) above. "the appropriate form"—

(a) in the case of the election agent for the candidates on a list submitted under paragraph 5 of Schedule 2 to the 1999 Act (election of London members) by a registered political party, is the form set out for the purpose in rules under section 36(2A) above;

(b) in the case of any of the candidates included in such a list, is the form set out for the purpose in those rules; and

(c) in any other case, is the form in Schedule 3 to this Act.".").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 216, line 38, at end insert —
("( ) After subsection (5) there shall be inserted—
"(5A) Where one of the candidates included in a list submitted under paragraph 5 of Schedule 2 to the 1999 Act (election of London members) by a registered political party is the election agent for those candidates, the declarations required by subsections (1) and (2) above shall instead be modified as specified in the form set out in the rules under section 36(2A) above.".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 216, line 38, at end insert—
("Penalty for sitting or voting where no return and declarations transmitted
.—(1) Section 85 shall be amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (2) there shall be inserted—
"(2A) As respects Authority elections—

(a) subsections (1) and (2) above shall not apply in relation to a candidate in an election of the Mayor of London (for which separate provision is made by section 85A below);

(b) in the case of any other Authority election, the reference in subsection (2)(a) above to the council for the local government area for which the election was held shall be taken as a reference to the London Assembly; and

(c) in the case of a candidate included in a list submitted under paragraph 5 of Schedule 2 to the 1999 Act (election of London members) by a registered political party. the references in subsection (1) above to the returns and declarations in respect of election expenses shall be taken as references to the declaration as to election expenses by the candidate.".").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 216, line 38, at end insert—
("Disqualification where no return and declarations transmitted after Mayoral election
.After section 85 there shall be inserted—
"Disqualification where no return and declarations transmitted after election of Mayor of London.
85A.—(1) If, in the case of any candidate at an election of the Mayor of London, the return and declarations as to election expenses are not delivered before the expiry of the time limited for the purpose, the candidate shall be disqualified from being elected or being the Mayor of London or a member of the London Assembly.
(2) Any application under section 86 below by such a candidate for relief in respect of a failure to deliver the return and declarations as to election expenses must be made within the period of 6 weeks following the day on which the time limited for their delivery expires.
(3) A disqualification under subsection (1) above shall not take effect unless or until

(a) the period specified in subsection (2) above for making an application for relief under section 86 below expires without such an application having been made; or

269

(b) if such an application is made, the application—

(i) is finally disposed of without relief being granted; or

(ii) is abandoned or fails by reason of non-prosecution.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, here again we have come to an interesting part of this group. This amendment proposes that if the mayor, unlike the assembly members, is found not to have handed in his election expenses within the requisite time, he shall be disqualified; he will not merely be suspended. As I understand it from the noble Baroness, further amendments in this area are to be tabled.
At this stage I would appreciate receiving from the Government an exposition of exactly what they believe will happen should this matter come to pass, and indeed, how they believe it might come to pass. What will constitute an undelivered set of election expenses? One could dream up any set of election expenses and submit it, but presumably that would not count. I assume that the election expenses would have to be accurate. If one reached the position where the election expenses of the mayor were in some way called into question, presumably it would be extremely difficult for any government of London to carry on until the matter was resolved. It may be that at that point the mayor has been disqualified and that actions by or on behalf of him would become—questionably—void.
The situation is odd and it is not one that occurs in parliamentary elections in which the Government and Parliament take the decisions. However, the mayor in this town will have a Very particular position. If his or her election expenses are queried in this way, and he or she is therefore seen to be likely to be disqualified, until that rather lengthy and tortuous procedure is settled (we have seen that in parliamentary election cases), the whole government of London will be called into question. I should like to understand exactly how this provision might be triggered, and I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to take me through the sequence of what would happen. I hope to understand the consequences for the government of London of a mayor who is first suspected of having produced incorrect expenses and is then eventually found to have done so. How would that be handled? It may be that this will need to be set out in a letter. However, I should appreciate a little essay on the subject from the noble Baroness this evening, if that is possible.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I rise in support of the question. The House should realise that, with the time-limits that we have accepted, if the eventuality arose, the mayor would have already been sworn in. I believe that the mayor will be sworn in within 48 hours of the election. In this scenario, he will then, therefore, have been functioning as mayor for nearly two-and-a-half months. Then, on a technicality, the office would come to an end and we would need to have another election. That may very well be, but it seems to me that we should recognise that the mayor should not be eligible to be recognised as the mayor until his return of election expenses has been submitted. Then there would not be the dilemma of somebody having served in the job for a long time and then suddenly losing it. The essay that the noble Baroness is going to write is expanding!
7 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I shall seek to answer the points raised by some noble Lords, but I crave the indulgence of other noble Lords in allowing me to give a written reply. It is extremely important that, for example, we take up the very valid point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and specify in detail for how long such a period of disqualification would apply. I hope that he will understand that I cannot, off the top of my head, refer to Section 85 of the 1983 Act and slot in the information. It would give me pleasure, and I hope give the noble Lord satisfaction, to write to him in detail on that point.
As the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said, there is a question about the period involved. I shall write to the noble Lord if my memory is in error, as it was on a previous occasion in relation to an issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, but my recollection is that when someone is elected, he or she will take office and assume the responsibilities, and that the disqualification occurs only when there is a challenge to the completed returns. It is my understanding that that situation would apply in this case in exactly the same way. To prevent people taking office until that process has been gone through could lead to an enormous hiatus.
I hope that I have answered some of the points raised. If other noble Lords want to ask detailed technical questions, I shall be only too happy to arrange detailed replies as soon as possible and before we reach the next stage.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, is the noble Baroness going to move the amendments? If she is going to move them before noble Lords have received written replies on the matters that she is going to look into, what will happen if the answers do not satisfy noble Lords, because the amendments will then have been passed?
The amendments have been put down quite late and the Opposition need answers to many of the points. However, the Government themselves need to know a little more about them.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I think the noble Lady misunderstands me. I have now moved Amendment No. 34. I have answered the factual questions raised about the period of disqualification and have stated that somebody takes office immediately upon acceptance of office. I have assured the noble Lords that I shall look into the period of disqualification.
There was a query as to whether 70 days was an accurate period of time. I have undertaken to write to noble Lords, but that is the kind of issue in respect of which we have considered representations from those who act as returning officers and have detailed, professional knowledge. I hope that noble Lords will accept the amendments as moved.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness to deal with a further question when she replies to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas? If, after 70 days, the mayor has failed to submit the election return, does the disqualification come into operation immediately or is it suspended for a further six weeks pending his request for relief under Section 86? I do not have a copy of the Act with me and I do not know

271
whether Section 86 already deals with that point, but if it does not, there would be a further period of uncertainty during which the mayor would be carrying out all the functions of office but be under threat of disqualification.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, this is in addition to Section 86, so the answer is that that provision does apply.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, is there a time-limit within which a challenge can be issued after the end of the 70 days, because it is eating well into the mayor's period of office? If it is a matter of weeks or months, it could cause absolute chaos.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, there is a period during which there may be an appeal by the person concerned. My understanding is that that is quite a lengthy period of two years. However, I am being very careful not to state that something is accurate without checking that that is so. I should be much happier if I could write to the noble Lord.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendments Nos. 35 to 41:
Page 216, line 38, at end insert—
("Publication of time and place for inspection of returns and declarations
.—(1) Section 88 shall be amended as follows.
(2) In the words preceding paragraph (a), after "At a parliamentary election" there shall be inserted "or an Authority election".
(3) In paragraph (a) (which requires publication of notices in at least two newspapers circulating in the constituency for which the election was held) after "the constituency" there shall be inserted "or electoral area".")
Page 216, line 42, at end insert—
("Schools and rooms for election meetings
.—(1) Section 96 shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) (which entitles a candidate to the use of certain premises for holding public meetings in furtherance of his candidature) for "in furtherance of his candidature" there shall be substituted "to promote or procure the giving of votes at that election—

(i) for himself, or

(ii) if he is a candidate included in a list of candidates submitted by a registered political party at an election of the London members of the London Assembly at an ordinary election, towards the return of candidates on that list,".").

Page 216. line 42, at end insert—
("Bribery
.—(1) Section 113 shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2) (conduct which constitutes bribery) at the end of paragraph (ii) there shall be added "; and

(iii) references to procuring the return of any person at an election include, in the case of an election of the London members of the London Assembly at an ordinary election, references to procuring the return of candidates on a list of candidates submitted by a registered political party for the purposes of that election".").

Page 216, line 42, at end insert—
("Election court for local election and place of trial
.—(1) Section 130 shall be amended as follows.
(2) At the beginning of subsection (2)(b)(ii) (which provides that a person is not qualified to constitute an election court for the trial of a petition relating to a local government area in which he practises) there shall be inserted "except in the case of an Authority election,".")
Page 216, line 42, at end insert—
("Consequences of election etc of London members being declared void.
.—(1) In section 135 (consequences of local election declared void) after subsection (1) (which provides for a new election in certain cases) there shall be inserted—
"(1A) Subsection (1) above shall not apply in the case of an election of the London members of the London Assembly at an ordinary election (for which separate provision is made by section 135A below)."
(2) After section 135 there shall be inserted—
"Consequences of election or return of London members being declared void
135A.—(1) This section applies where the election court has made a determination under section 145 below at the conclusion of the trial of a petition questioning the election of the London members of the London Assembly at an ordinary election.
(2) Where, pursuant to section 145(6) below, the proper officer of the Greater London Authority receives the copy of the certificate of the election court's determination in relation to the election which was questioned, he shall send notice of the determination to the Greater London returning officer.
(3) If the election is not declared void but—

(a) the return of a candidate at the election is declared void, and

(b) no other person has been declared returned in his place, the vacancy shall be filled (or, as the case may be, remain unfilled) as if it were a casual vacancy (see section 11 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999).

(4) If the election is declared void, a new election shall be held in the same manner as at an ordinary election.
(5) The date of the poll at the new election shall be fixed by the Greater London returning officer.
(6) The date fixed shall be no later than three months after the receipt by the Greater London returning officer of the notice under subsection (2) above.
(7) A new election shall not be held if the latest date which may be fixed for the poll falls within the period of three months preceding an ordinary election.
(8) If the determination of the election court is that the election is void, the Greater London returning officer shall inform the returning officer for each Assembly constituency of—

(a) the contents of the notice under subsection (2) above; and

(b) the date fixed for the poll at the new election.

(9) The results of the elections of the constituency members of the London Assembly at the last ordinary election shall have effect for the purposes of ascertaining the results of the new election.".").
Page 216, line 42, at end insert—
("Conclusion of trial of local election petition
.—(1) Section 145 shall be amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (1) (which specifies the questions to be determined by the election court) there shall be inserted—
"(1A) In the application of subsection (1) above in relation to an election of the London members of the London Assembly at an ordinary election, for the words from "shall determine" to "void," there shall be substituted "shall determine whether—

(a) the person or persons whose return is complained of were duly returned,

(b) some other person or persons should have been declared to be returned, or

(c) the election was void.".").

Page 216, line 42, a t end insert—
("Election court determination in respect of election of Mayor or constituency member
. After section 145 there shall be inserted —
"Determination in respect of election of Mayor of London or constituency member of London Assembly.
145A.—(1) This section applies where the election court makes a determination under section 145 above in respect of—

(a) the election of the Mayor of London, or

(b) the election of a constituency member of the London Assembly, and the conditions in subsections (2) and (3) below are satisfied.

(2) The first condition is that the determination of the election court is—

(a) that the person whose election is complained of was not duly elected; or

(b) that the election was void.

(3) The second condition is that the return of that person at that election was taken into account for the purpose of deciding which persons were to be returned as London members of the London Assembly.
(4) Where this section applies, the validity of the return of the London members of the London Assembly shah not be affected by—

(a) the determination of the election court; or

(b) in a case falling within subsection (1)(b) above, the subsequent return of a person as the constituency member for the Assembly constituency concerned.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 217, line 6, at end insert—
("Avoidance of election Pr employing corrupt agent
.—(1) Section 165 shall be amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (3) (vote given for person incapable of being elected by reason of employing corrupt agent not to be deemed to be thrown away unless given for same person at a poll consequent on the decision of an election court) there shall be added—
"(4) In the case of an election of the Mayor of London, a vote deemed accordance with subsection (3) above to be thrown away shall be so deemed only to the extent that it is a vote given so as to indicate that the person who was under the incapacity is the voter's first or second preference from among the candidates."").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am sorry to cause inconvenience, but there will be one or two other amendments in this section in respect of which I should like an answer.
I confess that my knowledge of what constitutes a corrupt agent in this context is scanty and I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to sketch that in, but an interesting innovation on the pattern of the present law is that when one is discovered it shall only be one type of member who is disqualified and not another type of member. I should be very grateful for an explanation of why this decision has been taken and why it is expressed in the amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is an important one. The expression "corrupt agent" could mean at least two things. It could mean somebody who has been successfully convicted of corruption, and it could mean that such a person could
274
never act as an agent in the circumstances envisaged; or it could mean somebody who, while acting as agent, behaved corruptly and was convicted accordingly. I presume that it is the last meaning that the Government intend. If so, they should make that clear. I suggest that we do not accept the amendment at present but ask the Government to take it away and consider it further with the parliamentary draughtsmen.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the Representation of the People Act 1983 includes the definition of corruption as:
"… having been convicted more than once of an offence under the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act … the candidate shall be incapable of being elected to fill the vacancy in the election which is held".
The side note to Section 165 reads:
"Avoidance of election for employing corrupt agent.
Section 165 goes on to state:
"If at a parliamentary or local government election a candidate or his election agent personally engages as a canvasser or agent for the conduct or management of the election any person whom he knows or has reasonable grounds for supposing to be subject to an incapacity to vote at the election …"
Those are two examples of corruption.
Amendment No. 42 merely provides that in circumstances where a mayoral candidate cannot be elected because he or she has employed such a corrupt agent, the elector's second preference vote is not deemed to be thrown away and is held as valid unless any other candidate is subject to the same incapacity.
I would be happy to write to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, with the detailed reply that he seeks and to send copies of the replies which have already been sought by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I trust that I am in order in saying that we should be grateful to her for pointing out the intention of the Government and the previous law in this matter. However, not all previous law makes good sense for ever, as some of us who have practised in the courts know only too well.
The expression "corrupt agent" in the circumstances in which it is intended to apply in the amendment needs to be looked at again. It obviously covers two possibilities; not merely the previous conviction but the behaviour while acting as agent. The Government would be wise to consider this again. It would be in their own interests and the long-term interests of Greater London.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I sympathise with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. Amendment No. 42 merely seeks to apply existing law in the particular circumstances proposed in this form of election in London. I sympathise only too well with the noble Lord when he makes the point that there may be sections of the law which need to be looked at again and revised. However, in the context of this Bill, I hope that he will agree that it is logical to ensure that the same caution, care and scrupulous attention to detail is taken within the

275
existing framework of the law to ensure that corruption does not allow anyone to gain or to lose inadvertently by not being involved in the corruption.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I move Amendments Nos. 43 to 46 en bloc. They all deal with references and definitions.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am not exactly au fait with the procedure of the House, but I wish to speak to Amendment No. 46.
Earl Russell: My Lords, perhaps I might assist the noble Lord. My understanding of the procedure is that if any noble Lord objects to the amendments being taken en bloc they are not so taken. Therefore, amendments No. 43 to 45 can be taken en bloc but Amendment No. 445 should be moved separately. The noble Lord can then speak to it.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendments Nos. 43 to 45 en bloc:
Page 217, line 6, at end insert—
("References to elections under the local government Act to include Authority elections
. After section 189 there shall be inserted'—
"The Greater London Authority
"Extension of references to elections under the local government Act.
189A. For the purposes of—

(a) Part II of this Act,

(b) Part III of this Act, and

(c) section 189 above, any reference to an election under the local government Act includes a reference to an Authority election.").

Page 217. line 9, after ("(1),") insert—

("(a) in the definition of "election", after "parliamentary election" there shall be inserted ", an Authority election";

(b) in paragraph (b) of the definition of "election court", after "questioning" there shall be inserted "an Authority election or".")

Page 217, line 16, at end insert—
("( ) In subsection (1), after the definition of "proper officer" there shall be inserted—

""registered political party" means a party registered under the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998;".").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 218, line 20, at end insert ("and related expressions shall be construed accordingly—)
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I should like clarification of the meaning of the amendment. It is to be inserted at the end of a subsection which states:
"Any reference in this Act to a registered political party submitting a list of candidates to be London members of the London Assembly at an ordinary election shall be construed in accordance with section 4(5Xa) of, and Part II of Schedule 2 to, the 1999 Act"
and which will then continue:
"and related expressions shall be construed accordingly".
Could the Minister provide me with a list of related expressions and how they should be construed because I am at a total loss to understand this?
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, my point is more general. As has been said most forcefully from this side of the House, there are difficulties with so many amendments, technical or not, coming before your Lordships at so late a stage.
I shall put my complaint on the record just once. It is not a complaint against Ministers; nor, indeed, against particular officials. I would not, of course, make that point. However, in producing a Bill which was clearly always going to be complex, the Government should have devoted adequate resources to its drafting.
I can only sympathise with those who have been involved in the preparation of the Bill. I note the Minister's remarks about listening to the representations that have been made both within and outside Parliament. However, Amendment No. 42 is both technical and legal. There should have been enough people dealing with it to have picked this up, perhaps not last November when it was first presented to another place, but certainly earlier than October of the following year.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I reiterate the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. It is impossible for the House to scrutinise this enormous schedule when it comes before us in this way. Most of this seven-page schedule amends other Acts of Parliament, to which we do not have instant access; I certainly do not. I only saw the amendments when I arrived at the House this morning. Therefore, we are not able to do a proper job.
The noble Baroness is quite right that we should not pin blame on anyone in particular. However, perhaps I might suggest that if the same situation arises again, the Government should supply the House with the equivalent of an Explanatory Memorandum and, if possible, quotes of how the amended Acts will look. They were good enough to do that with one part of the Scotland Bill which the House had problems in understanding.
It is not at all suitable for this to be done in this way. The Government may inadvertently make mistakes as a result of not having the schedule scrutinised. It would be helpful if they could perhaps provide something better. It would have been helpful to my noble friend Lord Renton who, as an eminent lawyer, asked a valid question. It was very difficult for him, as for the rest of us, to see how it would read when the Bill was amended. Would it be possible to do that in future?
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, there have been in the past, if I remember correctly, rewrites of legislation that was being amended in a major way in the Bill amending that legislation. I am not sure whether I am right, but I wonder if I am thinking of a Keeling schedule. Would it be possible to include that in this Bill?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am sorry. I think there is a misunderstanding here. It is not that we are amending the Representation of the Peoples Act; it is that we are applying it and tailoring it to this particular Bill. Therefore producing an example of what the other Bill would look like is not relevant in this context. The particular query raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, with regard to this particular example is that it merely ensures that the definitions referred to encompass the point already being covered, ensuring that they relate to registered political parties. It is a fairly minor point, meant to ensure that the legislation applies in the appropriate way to a different form of government.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 47:
After Clause 18, insert the following new clause—
EXPENDITURE OF SECRETARY OF STATE IN CONNECTION WITH HOLDING THE FIRST ORDINARY ELECTION
(" .—(1) The Secretary of State may incur expenditure in doing anything which he considers expedient—

(a) in preparation for the holding of the first ordinary election,—

(b) for the purpose of facilitating the conduct of the first ordinary election, or

(c) otherwise in connection with the holding of the first ordinary election.

(2) "The Secretary of State must not, by virtue of subsection (1) above, incur expenditure of a kind which is recoverable by a returning officer under suction 18 above.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this new clause is an important technical addition to the provisions for expenditure on the first GLA election. As currently drafted, the Bill only allows returning officers to incur expenditure directly in support of preparing for the election. That is normal practice, and returning officers will be reimbursed their costs accordingly. However, the reality of the matter is that it may be some time before we are able to appoint a Greater London returning officer, and we need to press ahead with preparations for the fast election. This clause will allow the Secretary of State to get on with the preparations in advance of the appointment of the Greater London returning officer. I commend the amendment to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I should be very grateful if the noble Lord could give me some examples of expenditure which would fall under the heading of "otherwise".
Lord Whitty: My Lords, "otherwise" relating to the preparation of the election means expenditure over and above that prescribed by the clause; for example, early information to the public as to in what manner their votes should be cast—not in what direction they should be cast. I was quoted earlier as being in favour of democratic centralism, but even I would not go that far. Therefore I
278
stand corrected on that. This would also help in preparing literature for the returning officer for the election. All that needs to start probably before the returning officer is formally appointed, and that is what the amendment is intended to cover.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the Minister sits down I wonder if I might ask him one further very specific question. He will be familiar with the Scope report about the difficulty of access to polling stations for disabled people. Would action taken to remedy that difficulty come under the heading of "otherwise" under this amendment?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, only if such action had to take place prior to the appointment of the returning officer. In most cases the actual preparation of the polling station, which is the relevant point, would almost certainly occur after a returning officer had been appointed. It refers more to the publications and preparations for advice rather than the actual physical conditions of the polling station itself.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, before the Minister sits down—I am sorry, but this point occurred to me while he was giving his explanation—can he advise the House of the significance of subsection (2)? I understood him to say that the Secretary of State could incur the expenditure that the returning officer would incur had the returning officer been appointed. However, subsection (2) says that the Secretary of State must not incur expenditure
"of a kind which is recoverable by a returning officer under section 18 above."
That seems contrary to what the Minister was saying was the purpose of the clause.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, once the returning officer is established it is his expenditure and not that of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State cannot therefore recover that expenditure, but up to the point where the returning officer is in post and has a budget, then the budget and that preparation falls on the Secretary of State. It is not directly covering the cost of the expenditure: it is a pre-returning officer's expenditure which is covered here.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, the new clause does not say that. It says "of a kind" incurred by a returning officer. It defines the sort of expenditure, not by whom it is incurred or when,
Lord Whitty: My Lords, with great respect, subsection (2) refers to expenditure incurred by a returning officer and recoverable by a returning officer.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, it says "of a kind".
Lord Whitty: My Lords, subsection (2) reads:
"The Secretary of State must not, by virtue of subsection (1) above, incur expenditure.….which is recoverable by a returning officer under section 18 above."
Is that what the noble Lord is referring to?
Lord Bowness: My Lords, I was referring to the fact that subsection (2) says,
"incur expenditure of a kind which is recoverable by a returning officer."

279
We know that the Secretary of State is going to spend money which would be spent by a returning officer had he been appointed, but the subsection appears specifically to exclude, not expenditure which the returning officer could legitimately incur, but expenditure had he been appointed, "of a kind" which he would incur. That seems to me to prevent the Secretary of State doing what he wants to do because there is no returning officer and he cannot spend money on that kind of thing.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Lord is referring now to the existing Clause 18(1), not the subsection to which he drew the attention of the House.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, I am sorry. Perhaps the noble Lord can write to me and explain. I am referring to Amendment No. 47, subsection (2), and the wording thereof.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as I understand it, that amendment does not refer to "of a kind". Where "of a kind" is referred to is in Clause 18(1)(a). I apologise. The words "of a kind" were omitted from my version and therefore for the last two minutes I have caused a serious misunderstanding between myself and the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, for which I deeply apologise. It is nevertheless expenditure of a kind determined by the Secretary of State under the existing Clause 18, which means the regulations which are issued by the Secretary of State in relation to parliamentary elections, as I understand it. Nevertheless, I shall write to the noble Lord, as he requested.
The Deputy Speaker (The Viscount of Oxfuird): The Question is that Amendment No. 47 be agreed to?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, forgive me, but before the noble Lord sits down, he has said that he is going to write to my noble friend. However, I would ask your Lordships: should not this amendment now be withdrawn, taken away and looked at so that we can have it in proper form in front of us? I feel sympathy for the Minister but it is a difficult position to be in if amendments are moved and accepted but we do not know what they mean.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as I understand it, this amendment has been moved and the vote was actually taken while the noble Baroness was standing up. If it has not been taken I now move it again. If anything arises from my consideration of what the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, said I shall come back at the next stage of the Bill and clarify the matter. However, can I just say that in the whole of this area all we have tried to do is to make sense of the Representation of the Peoples Act in the context of the new London elections.
There is no question of pulling the wool over anyone's eyes. I have outlined what we are trying to do. The same applies here, where there will be a hiatus before the appointment of the returning officer. I commend the
280
amendment to the House. If anything further arises in this respect, I will return to your Lordships on the matter.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 48 not moved.]
7.30 p.m.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 11, line 33, at beginning insert ("section 85(2A) or")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, this is the last of the notorious group. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel moved at the end of this grouping to agree that such groups should not be imposed upon this House again in the course of the Bill. It really would be much simpler and easier if we rattled through these questions with a separate subject for each group, rather than having a mishmash of what has turned out to be half a dozen good and important debates within one group. In particular, when discussing issues on Report, we cannot come back in the course of the debate. It is extremely difficult to handle portmanteau groups effectively. When amendments involve matters which we have not seen before, I think that the Government owe us the courtesy of presenting them to us in a way which is reasonably digestible.
I have a very simple question for the noble Baroness and I hope that she will be able to solve it for me. Can she say what Section 85(2A), which, apparently, was forgotten by the draftsmen in their previous attempts at this Bill, will do?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord. There was a sound of paper being rustled and I did not actually hear his question.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the amendment would bring Section 85(2A) of the Representation of the People Act into the disqualification provision. I would be grateful to know what this section does and why it was previously omitted.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Lord ought perhaps to consider my remarks on the previous amendment. All we are trying to do here is to bring in a form of the Representation of the People Act which is applicable to the London elections. I do not have any trouble with the Representation of the People Act or with the other legislation to which there is a cross-reference. I can assure the noble Lord that we are doing nothing underhand here. Therefore, if he requires further clarification and is not satisfied with that clarification, we will return to the matter on Third Reading.
I believe that the whole episode of the past hour or so has indicated that we have not sufficiently communicated our intentions to the House, and I apologise for that. Nevertheless, this is a fairly straightforward transposition of pre-existing electoral legislation upon which I would have thought we could have reached a consensus. However, that may be partly through the late tabling of our own amendments and partly because of a suspicion on the other side of the House that we are trying to pull a fast one—and we are not. I think that such groupings could be done better in the future. For the moment, I commend Amendment No. 49 to the House. In the same light as I replied to the

281
noble Lord, Lord Bowness, I should tell the noble Lord that if he is not satisfied with my subsequent reply, we will return to the matter on Third Reading.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I am absolutely certain that there is no suggestion that anyone from any part of the House is trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes. However, the fact remains—and this point was made very early on in the proceedings—that very many amendments were tabled at a late stage. The Chief Whip said that something like 80 per cent of those amendments were in response to points that we had made.
The point we would now like to make is that none of these issues that have been discussed over the past hour are in response to any points that we made. As they appear to be so necessary and the Minister wishes to move them before we have actually seen the documentation—he feels that there is nothing much in them and that they are quite simple, and so on—we would like to point out that it really does look like legislating on the hoof. This Bill has been through the House of Commons; indeed, as I said before, it has been through the Committee stage, the Report stage and Third Reading. It has also been through the Committee stage here. It seems extraordinary to us that, all of a sudden, things arrive which apparently are so obvious and simple. We have had no time to discuss them.
Noble Lords, like my noble friend Lord Lucas, have only seen such amendments today and it is very difficult to deal with them. Quite frankly, with all the other amendments that we have had to consider, noble Lords on the Opposition Front Bench have not really had the time to take note of these issues. Indeed, we have had since Friday. It has been impossible. We do not have the officials. We are not blaming the Ministers and we are not singling out any officials. I think that the Ministers have been ill-served in this matter. I feel very sorry for them. Nevertheless, the fact remains that it has not been right for us and it is not right for the House. This whole group of amendments ought to have been taken away, looked at again and the necessary advice taken as regards the questions that noble Lords have asked.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I must say that I have huge sympathy for the Minister's position. I readily accept that we on these Benches should have looked up Section 85(2A). We, too, have been overwhelmed. However, as I read it, this is an amendment to Clause 20, which deals with disqualification of someone who is elected as mayor or as an assembly member I believe that to be so serious that it is not a matter upon which the House should be asked to take a decision.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not sure whether or not we are all abusing the procedural rules relating to the Report stage of a Bill. However, it is logical that I rise to speak at this point, even if it is not entirely procedurally in order. Again, all we are doing here is dealing with the disqualification proceedings which are at present in existing legislation and transposing them into this legislation by means of amendment. If noble Lords do not agree with that, I think that they had better vote against the
282
amendment. I wish to press the amendment now. If further issues arise as a result of subsequent correspondence between us, they can be dealt with on Third Reading.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I hope that he agrees that nothing said during the course of the past few minutes has answered my question as to what this amendment actually does. We are being asked to insert something into the Bill about which we are entirely in the dark. We have received no explanation from the Government as to what it will do. If the Government do not know what it does, I really do not think that they have any business voting on it.
7.37 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 49) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 96; Not-Contents, 93.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Ahmed, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Alli, L.

Hoyle, L.

Amos, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Bach, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Chancellor)

Berkeley, L.

Islwyn, L.

Blackstone, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Blease, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Bragg, L.

Kennet, L.

Brett, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Burlison, L.

Lockwood, B.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Chandos, V.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Christopher, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

[Teller]

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Crawley, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Molloy, L.

David, B.

Monkswell, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Orme, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Palmer, L.

Desai, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Dixon, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Donoughue, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Dubs, L.

Rea, L.

Elder, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Sawyer, L.

Gilbert, L.

Simon, V.

Goudie, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Grenfell, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hacking, L.

Thornton, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Varley, L.

Hayman, B.

Walpole, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Whitty, L.

283

Wilkins, B.

Winston, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alderdice, L.

Lucas, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Lyell, L.

Avebury, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Baker of Dorking, L.

McNair, L.

Barker, B.

McNally, L.

Bathurst, E.

Maddock, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Mancroft, L.

Berners, B.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Biddulph, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Blatch, B.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Boardman, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Bowness, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Burnham, L.

Montrose, D.

Buscombe, B.

Mountevans, L.

Byford, B.

Moyne, L.

Calverley, L.

Moynihan, L.

Carlisle, E.

Munster, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Norrie, L.

Carnock, L.

Northbourne, L.

Chesham, L.

Northesk, E.

Clancarty, E.

Norton of Louth, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Clement-Jones, L.

Onslow, E.

Coleraine, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Cross, V.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Dholakia, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Radnor, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Renton, L.

Elton, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Falkland, V.

Rotherwick, L.

Ferrers, E.

Russell, E.[Teller]

Geddes, L.

Selsdon, L.

Geraint, L.

Sharples, B.

Goschen, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gray, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L

Hamwee, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Henley, L.[Teller]

Swinfen, L.

Hogg, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Hooper, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Thurso, V.

Kinnoull, E.

Tope, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Tordoff, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Torrington, V.

Leigh, L.

Wise, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Young, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned and that we resume again not before 8.50 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Art Colleges
7.41 p.m.
Lord Freyberg: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to introduce this debate on the Government's plans for the funding and role of art colleges in the United Kingdom. I wish to spell out the enormous changes which have taken place in art colleges in the past
284
decade; the effect of those changes; and the likely consequences if certain aspects of funding are not rethought.
The case for art colleges is an unusual one. Their importance lies not only in the obvious end results—painting and sculpture—but in the atmosphere of creativity engendered and encouraged. Over the years, that has borne fruit in the work of the creative industries, which range from product design and fashion and furniture-making to graphic design, the film world and the theatre. In other words, our colleges make a major contribution to Britain's economy, although many of the most profitable movers and shakers in the design world start off studying fine arts before turning to more practical applications. That is because creativity has to be properly nurtured before any quantifiable results appear. Britain's imaginative art school courses have in the past been excellent at doing that, winning admiration world-wide. However, with their emphasis on employability, governments sometimes seem to confuse education with training. For example, recent Conservative governments attempted to boost vocational art courses at the expense of non-vocational ones, not realising their interdependence.
In the past decade art colleges have been forced to run themselves as commercial enterprises. While there is nothing particularly sinister in modernising institutions or putting professional practices in place, the cost-cutting has gone too far. Every year since 1989 governments have demanded an annual efficiency rate of at least 1 per cent, and sometimes up to 3 per cent, in real terms. The practice continues under the current Labour Government. While there was room for improvement initially, the continuing chipping away at funding throughout the 1990s has had a detrimental effect. Instead of putting their energy into maintaining excellence, art colleges have had to concentrate on fund-raising while course heads have been overwhelmed with paperwork. The pressure has eroded core teaching and damaged a precious ethos. It is a running battle which staff feel they are losing. Students and their work suffer as a result, while tutors are frustrated at being diverted from what they were hired to do. The policy is short-termism at its worst.
Of particular concern are two practices art colleges have been forced to adopt. These were reasonable in their initial stages but have been taken to damaging extremes. First, since the late 1980s colleges have been obliged to take on more and more students in order to maintain their original level of funding, but without a corresponding increase in facilities, working space or tutors. For example, in 1989, I was one of around 100 students on the foundation course at Camberwell College of Arts; today, there are 324. Extra students may keep up figures—and thus funding—but teachers have less time for individual tuition, and students find that there are simply not enough kilns, video editing suites or materials to go round. Student surveys at the London Institute all indicate that students are dissatisfied with the amount of equipment, studio space and resources available.

285
The second cause for concern is the explosion of overseas art students in the UK, up from 3,316 in 199495 to 6,654 in 1997–98. In theory, that development should be exciting and enriching; in practice such students are encouraged chiefly for the extra income their fees provide. In 1998–99, 2,143 students from 88 different countries contributed fees of £12.2 million to the London Institute, which consists of Camberwell College of Arts, Central St Martin's. Chelsea College of Art, the London College of Printing and the London College of Fashion. It would not survive without that extra income. Is it right to depend on overseas students to that extent?
Colleges are free to set their own level of fees for students from outside the European Union—depending on what the market can bear. Thus, the Ruskin in Oxford charges £6,684 a year; the Slade £11,435; and the Royal College of Art £15,670 a year. By comparison, Eton College, with longer terms and full board, costs £15,660 per year. Without such fees, these institutions would go to the wall. They are therefore obliged to take as many foreign students as possible. There is no set limit. Inevitably, the quality of those students' work is less important than their ability to pay. Too often, overseas students cannot speak much English—in spite of their course involving written work.
That naturally lowers the morale of other students who have to fight harder for their own places. But everyone's credibility is affected. The overseas students feel that they have been seduced to British art colleges as cash cows and that, thanks to overextended courses, the back-up and facilities they were promised simply do not exist. There are several cases pending in London where overseas students are suing the college they attend for delivering poor value for money.
In addition, there are stories of art colleges touting for business abroad. vying in an unsightly manner with each other for desirable potential students. Is it really desirable that rich foreign students alone—rather than talented ones—should have access to British art colleges? Rather than making further education more accessible, such a policy diminishes diversity. That is an iniquitous double standard. Moreover, it is extremely difficult for institutions to voice their concerns without fear of being penalised.
Worse still, by cramming in students and accepting some of dubious standard, Britain risks losing its reputation for excellent art education—the very reason overseas students are prepared to pay over the odds. So far, people are still willing to pay, but if the current situation continues we shall kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.
Art colleges should not be penalised for practices that have been forced on them. However, that could well happen once there is regulation of the recruitment of overseas students, the level of their fees, and so on, and the findings are published, as should properly happen. Instead, the Government should accept that they have pushed the situation too far, show that they are prepared to get to grips with the problem, and
286
allow otherwise efficient organisations to operate at a less pressurised level in the best interests of students and staff alike.
There are other financial problems, in particular the lack of postgraduate funding, which is the responsibility of the Arts and Humanities Research Board, set up in 1998. Postgraduate bursaries for arts and design are far fewer than in other subjects and the competition steeper. At PhD level, students of English and history are eligible to apply for funds but arts and design graduates are not.
With that scenario, the brightest and most promising students are likely to be deterred from continuing their studies because they cannot face further debt. So, while the UK's invisible earnings in music, art and film are mammoth, and the Government make a lot of mileage out of Britain's creative industries, the funding to develop those skills largely runs out at undergraduate level. Where is the logic in that?
All these concerns would not matter if students were getting a better education, but they are not. The academic base of art colleges is being constantly eroded. Sadly, the reason is financial—the commodification of art education. By placing too many financial and managerial constraints you blight standards and morale.
What we have in our art colleges is very special. It is the driving force behind the creative economy. That is why colleges deserve sustained funding to continue in the most robust manner possible. The Government must act soon or they will destroy—however unintentionally—one of Britain's best resources.
7.59 p.m.
The Earl of Clancarty: My Lords,
"A disaster of massive proportions is going unnoticed in the press. I'm referring to a development of major national significance, which every painter and sculptor I know has bitterly opposed since its inception; namely, the Government-decreed, and therefore forcible, absorption of nearly all the country's biggest and most important colleges of art by the new polytechnics".
So began Patrick Heron's article titled Murder of the Art Schools published in the Guardian coincidentally on Tuesday 12th October 1971, exactly 28 years ago. He says:
"Would it not be much better to streamline the whole system in such a way that the vast majority of art students were side-tracked from the beginning into a host of useful, economically justifiable, skills and disciplines and indeed trades—in a word—were discouraged from the madness of pursuing the uselessness of fine art, which is an end in itself, and were encouraged instead to think from the start of the relevance of the applied arts to society?"
One almost has to add that that was meant ironically, because today it appears to be government policy.
Heron did not dismiss what he termed the applied arts—far from it. However, what he regarded as central is now regarded as marginal—a grassroots groundswell of free and independent artistic thinking that might tentatively be termed a core or base level "fine art culture" or "impulse" out of which the

287
applied artists, designers, pop musicians and all others could draw and develop ideas. The understanding is that this terrain of experimental thinking could develop properly only in institutions which retain their autonomy within the education system.
It is this terrain of experimental thinking which is today most under threat. One of the problems now is a confusion about what an artist is. Heron used the phrase,
"the relevance of the applied arts to society",
but today we might rephrase that as, "the relevance of the arts as applied to the demands and needs of society and industry".
It is tacitly assumed, certainly by this Government, that the so-called "creative industries" embrace the work of all artists. The creative industries are not all-inclusive. They define a certain kind of creative work which can respond rapidly to the demands of the market. They do not necessarily include artists who have a critical relationship to society, untempered by commercial considerations.
Over the past three decades, the absorption of colleges into polytechnics and universities and the accompanying lack of resources for a greatly increased number of arts students, also mirrored by a decline in the funding of the arts sector, has begun to place certain limits on freedoms of thought and creativity, as it existed within the colleges.
That does not mean that there is not creative thinking in art colleges and university art departments; there is a great deal. But the reduction in available studio space, for example, places a limitation on the possibility of developments not only in practice but also in the thinking which is dependent on that practice. Nor should creativity stop at the college gates. Those who have been watching the current BBC documentary series on the Royal College of Art may recall the remarks in the programme on fashion of one of the students. She said that while she was at college this was her "last chance"—that was the phrase she used—to be creative, since after graduating there would be no further chance to experiment. It is clear that such feelings are now not uncommon and that they start to raise questions not only about the funding of art departments, but also about the whole relationship between the work that is carried out in those departments and the outside funding environment.
Loans and tuition fees, too, are part of this creation of a mental climate which justifies everything you do in economic rather than in intellectual or artistic terms. I believe there was nothing essentially wrong with the mandatory grant system, and that it should be restored. The London Institute estimates that after three full years of loans, students taking fine art courses will be in debt on average by about £14,000. The assumption is that graduates will get jobs, and indeed there is considerable evidence to suggest that arts graduates are very adaptable in taking different kinds of jobs within the arts sector and outside. But that does not help those students whose primary desire
288
is to become artists contributing to that groundswell of creative activity from which others also may draw inspiration.
The question should be not whether we can find work for the artist to do when he or she leaves art college, but whether we are prepared to believe in and value the work in which in many respects they are already engaged. A detailed National Artists Association survey found that the average income of practising artists was just over £7,000 a year. We have a laissez-faire attitude towards arts graduates. The tendency is to say, "They'll win through in the end if they persevere". That is obviously true for those who do. However, you do not build a thriving culture in that way, but one that is for ever struggling. You cannot expect individual products of creativity to emerge without the contribution of a considerable number of artists who themselves may never achieve recognition.
A particular casualty of lack of funding is the arts foundation course which is placed at a crucial point between leaving school and beginning a degree course. Foundation courses provide prospective arts students with a necessary experimental grounding in a range of practical areas from which they can later choose to specialise. There are no loans for foundation students, clearly no government grant funding. The student is often still living at home and having to be supported for the cost of materials and educational trips, among other things, by families that often cannot afford it. The danger is that foundation courses will become increasingly populated by students from wealthier backgrounds, and that poorer students will be excluded.
The whole problem of resources for art students is paramount. Last year, students at Camberwell College of Arts held a 10-day occupation which was primarily a protest against lack of resources. There are important differences, for example, between fine art and design practice and other subjects, not only in terms of cost but in terms of the utilisation of space and time. Since the Further Education Funding Council took over the funding of art foundation courses from the local authorities, with an accompanying drastic reduction in funding, it has applied what are called "space norms" which are the standards by which the space which students occupy in a college is assessed. Yet the normal assumptions that the FEFC makes in terms of space, student frequency and occupancy are those that apply to disciplines which will use the lecture room, for example, where space is about a constant flow of students. Practical courses are by nature quite different in that colleges tend to encourage students to occupy a studio on site every day of the week. I ask the Minister whether she will agree to look into the issue.
In line also with problems other disciplines face, teaching staff suffer from an overload of administrative duties. In art colleges this situation is particularly detrimental because it affects the time they can devote effectively to their students, including the

289
need for one-to-one tutorial contact, as well as the time necessary to devote to the development of their own creative work.
When I phoned the DfEE to research this debate, I was told that it had no policy on art colleges. It had policies on further and higher education, but not on art colleges per se. That is clearly at least in part a result of the absorption in to universities of art courses which has taken place over such a long period. I would be interested to know whether the Department of Education and Science in 1971 would have given me the same response.
Finally, when looking at art colleges, one also has to look at art education as a whole and to see the importance of the arts and humanities as having a fundamental place at the heart of the school curriculum. I note that there is to be a joint response by the department and the DCMS to the report of the National Advisory Committee on Cultural and Creative Education on creativity, culture and education at the end of this month. But what I most look forward to is a detailed joint policy by both departments on art education, from schools right through to post-graduate level.
8.8 p.m.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, has given us an interesting subject for debate. He asks the Government an interesting Question and I have no doubt that the noble Baroness will give him a full and interesting Answer. I wish to explore some of the implications of the questions which the noble Lord asked and the concerns which arise from them.
The primary objectives of the Government's education policy are admirable. They are to increase literacy and numeracy in our country. If they succeed—and we all hope that they will—that must inevitably increase equal opportunities in this country and contribute to our future affluence, success and competitiveness in the world. The concerns we have on these Benches are that the concentration on these admirable objectives must not be permitted to eclipse the importance of the arts.
The arts in this country have enjoyed a chequered career in education over a number of years. Indeed, my own parents met at an art school. My mother was training to be a painter in the late 1920s. What my father was doing in the art school is not entirely clear, but that is where they met. She went on, unusually for those times, to make a living, not as a portrait painter as she had intended but in fashion work, later going on to paint portraits. 'There was a reasonably large number of people in the art schools at that time but most of them went there to study painting, drawing, sculpture and the more craft-oriented areas of the arts. I met my first wife when she was at art school at Clerkenwell at the beginning of the 1960s. At that time the art schools were quite well funded by various local authorities. There were a lot of young men and women attending them, carrying out a lot of experimental work—far too experimental for the taste of many—
290
and many successful people went on" not necessarily into the world of painting and drawing but into the worlds of music, film and so on. Again, funding was not an enormous problem.
I now have a daughter who has decided to discontinue her studies at art school, her reason being that she has always wanted to be a painter. Though she had a good academic record, she decided not to go to university but to go to art school. There she found that, because of the need now for students to acquire skills to pass a degree course, she was not enabled to draw and paint to the extent that she wanted but was required to write essays on post-Modernism and to discuss the influence of Kant, Hegel and so on, in various essays—essays which she could write. She said, however, that 90 per cent of the students there had not heard of Kant or Hegel, or indeed knew what post-Modernism was; but they wrote the essays and everyone received the same marks—indicating that there was collusion between the students and the administration, in order to go through the performance of maintaining the new educational importance of these kinds of subject. My daughter, who wishes to be a painter, has therefore left and is painting.
This is slightly worrying, though I appreciate that art schools now have a much wider remit, given the requirements of a technological society and the wider application of the arts. I am concerned because, as my daughter said in rather broader terms than I would wish to use in your Lordships' house, it is distressing that the atmosphere in the art school—an excellent art school, with excellent teaching in drawing and painting—was that of an almost exclusively middle-class establishment.
These days, because of the lack of funding, the need to pay tuition fees and the need to borrow as a student, it means that many people from poorer backgrounds are no longer willing or wish to take the risk to go to art school. Art schools are expensive institutions to run. A lot of space is needed: much more than a lot of people crammed into a room, learning about Kant and Hegel, for example. You need room for the materials for sculpture, painting, drawing, photography and so on. The tuition costs alone represent an inhibitory factor for the broad entry from our society which is needed. After all, much of the contribution to the arts in this country over the last 30 to 40 years has been across the socio-economic barriers. I am quite sure that in that regard I would have the support of David Hockney and Patrick Procter, for example—another painter from that period but from a different background.
Given that, and also the fact that because of the urge to move towards literacy and numeracy infant pupils are having less access to the arts than before—a survey by the Royal Society of Arts has shown that such pupils now spend half the time on arts-related subjects that they did 10 years ago—one has some concern for the coming generations going to the art schools. There is less funding for visits to art galleries and exhibitions. One wonders whether this trend will lead to a situation which is worrying in a wider context.

291
I hesitate to mention France because it always seems to raise the hackles, particularly of government, but France is a country which might be described in the broadest possible sense as a bourgeois country. It has high standards of education generally, even though a lot of disputes arise in that area. It has a high standard of living and people have high expectations in their life and attainments. It is a much more formal society. Indeed, a term of disapproval, if a member of one's family in France is not doing a regular job or is disappointing the family in some way, is "He's an artist". On the other hand, they pay great attention to culture and the arts—much more than we do.
I am concerned that we become an ordered, prosperous, successful society, a much less differentiated society - in the way that I am quite sure the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, would like us to become, as I do—but that we do that without paying attention to the arts. At least the French, although they are a much less free society than we are and a much more centrally controlled society, realise that it is important to encourage artists of all kinds, not only to do what they do but to challenge the barriers which face them; indeed, to encourage them to be iconoclastic, to take risks, to push the barriers forward; indeed, to fail—always a problem with artists. In order to flourish, they must be allowed to fail as well as to succeed. I wonder if the noble Baroness has an answer to this?
I am sorry if I am asking questions which I should more properly ask of the Minister for Culture, but I am quite sure that the noble Baroness and the Minister often speak together on these subjects.
It is a matter of concern. Will the Government seek to correct the dangerous trends being pointed out by the Royal Society of Arts and others, and the fact that fewer people will want to go into the arts because they do not have the basic education to do so? Will we bear in mind the need for us to take and maintain our place as a country which in the arts is challenging, innovative—even at the risk of offending a few people with cows' heads and other things which appear in exhibitions?
8.19 p.m.
Baroness Blotch: My Lords, there is absolutely no doubting the interest and the passion with which the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, supported by his noble friend Lord Clancarty, views the importance of the arts. In the Motion before the House we are to discuss the funding and the role of the arts in the United Kingdom.
I have been absolutely fascinated by the family history of the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. We heard an interesting story about how his daughter responded to her place in art school. That, too, poses a number of questions to which we look forward to hearing the Minister reply. I welcome this debate and the opportunity that the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, has given us.
292
There will be little difference between all parties on the importance of the role of the arts in the United Kingdom. All aspects of our lives are touched in some way by the skills and talents of those who have trained in arts and design. At the most practical level we must accept that art and design underpin all our manufacturing industries. We must also recognise how the quality of our lives is enhanced by music, drama and art in all its forms. More importantly, we must recognise the massive contribution that the arts make to economic generation and regeneration.
I take some pride in having been a member of a government that introduced art into the national curriculum as a right for all children. Sadly, it is no longer central to the national curriculum as it once was. I was also party to the development of the city technology colleges and specialist schools, including those that specialised in the arts. They have been so successful that I am pleased to note that they exist under the present Government and that their number is still increasing.
However, I believe that the predominant concern of the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, apart from stating the obvious—the importance of the arts within the United Kingdom—is their funding. Much has been made of the £9 billion earmarked for education over a three-year period. Schools, colleges, universities and colleges of the arts can be forgiven for expecting vastly increased budgets, but when one realises how the £9 billion is arrived at a different picture emerges: just over £3 billion this year, £3 billion next year and just over £3 billion the year after. This cumulative accounting has been used to create the impression of a massive increase for education. However, much of the educational world has been waking up the fact that this does not live up to the generosity claimed by the Government.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and his colleagues on the Liberal Benches have done some detailed work on this matter and are making comparisons between the funding provided by the two governments. The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, was fairly even-handed in his criticism not only of the present Government but of the previous one, but the funding is not as generous as it may seem. Even the Prime Minister is discovering this. His children attend a school with a fine reputation for music and the arts. I have been most impressed by the work going on in the school. That school is receiving less money than it requires to maintain its present level of staffing.
There is a good deal of data available, but I have found it quite difficult to find it over the past few days. I pose a number of questions for the Minister. Just in case the Minister suggests that I ask too many questions at short a notice, either I shall receive the answers now or perhaps I shall be patient and wait for them in writing. But it would be interesting to know just how much of the additional moneys from tuition fees has gone specifically to arts colleges. How many specific arts colleges within the whole list of such institutions have been singled out for preferential treatment? I make no criticism of that. There have

293
been some generous allocations of grant to ballet, music and the conservatoires, which have already been mentioned. However, I have in mind core arts college funding and the extent to which the preferential treatment is detracting from the funding of the other arts colleges.
How many art foundation course students took a course in 1998–99 with the intention of going on to higher education commencing this autumn, and who will be liable for tuition fees? That question was posed in February of this year. The response from Mr Moody in the department was that the data would be available in April, so it would be helpful to have that information now. How much would it cost to exempt arts foundation courses from tuition fees? That question has also been asked before but there has been insufficient information about how many young people take up places on foundation courses. That concern was raised by both the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty.
Finally, how much money is being diverted away from the National Lottery Arts and Heritage Fund to health, education and the environment? I am a trustee of two museums and am involved with many schools. I receive a fair postbag about those organisations that have high expectations of grants from the Arts and Heritage Fund. They are in receipt of some pretty stern letters which say that funds are now much depleted and will not be available in such amounts in future. It is important to have that information.
We were not to know that one noble Lord would scratch from this debate. In such a short time it is difficult to do justice to the subject. I have looked through the pages of Hansard to see how many times we have discussed the arts. We have done so a number of times. I shall not repeat what has been said before, other than to return to what I said at the beginning. So often we underrate the role of the arts in the United Kingdom, their aesthetic importance, their importance as an economic generator within the country and their importance to our country as a whole in maintaining our status in the world.
Having said that, one does not want to detract from standards in our schools today wherever one sees young people's art exhibitions and drama and music productions. At the end of this month I shall attend the Schools Orchestra Concert in Birmingham. The orchestra will be playing again next year in Paris. The standard is superb. The importance of this debate is to ensure that that standard is preserved. I end by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, for this further opportunity to give our support to the subject.
8.27 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, I too am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, for giving me this opportunity to speak about the role and funding of art and design colleges. Art and design is central to society and to our sense of ourselves, enriching ourselves in every way. It is inextricably linked with our culture and heritage. I very much agree
294
with the remarks of the noble Lord and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. We should value the fine arts for their own sake. But art and design and its associated activities make a very large and growing contribution to the economy, and that is not something that we should ignore.
Before I turn to education in art and design, I should say a brief word about general government support for the arts and perhaps respond to some of the points raised by the noble Viscount. Following the Comprehensive Spending Review, the Government have put in place a three-year funding settlement which involves an increase of £125 million for the arts and £99 million for museums and galleries. This is the biggest-ever increase in funding for cultural activity by central government and is something of which we can be proud. It will help to create stability, fund new productions, support key arts organisations and increase access, we hope, for many thousands of people.
We have taken other measures. We have established a special fund—the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, referred to this—to enable dance and drama students to obtain proper grants and assistance to undertake courses at accredited colleges. We are ensuring that the provisions of the New Deal are appropriate to the needs of young musicians who wish to follow that career path. We have insisted that art, music and drama must remain a statutory part of the national curriculum in our schools. I think that issue was raised by more than one speaker. We have also established NESTA (the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts) to provide a national fund for talent.
The arts provide their own justification by what they do for us all. As I think the noble Baroness. Lady Blatch, has already said, they also have an increasing economic importance in our national life, in commercial music, film, architecture, design, publishing, broadcasting, multimedia, and fashion. Growing at twice the rate of the economy as a whole, these industries are worth over £60 billion per year. I am not sure that I completely understood what the noble Earl was saying in his comments on creative industry, but I think it is reasonable to consider these collectively as a creative industry because they rest ultimately for their economic value on the creativity of individuals, and the intellectual property that is created by them. Economically, artists and designers are categorised as part of the creative industry sector. Recent work by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport attempted to measure, for the first time, the extent of this sector. The estimate was that it generated added value of about £25 billion, with export earnings of nearly £7 billion. These industries are growing at a rapid rate—a 34 per cent increase in employment over the 10-year period of the census compared with only a slight increase throughout the economy as a whole. Of course, many of these industries take in graduates from our art and design colleges. At a rate of growth between 4 and 5 per cent per annum, which is less than

295
the current rate of growth, within 10 years they could be employing 1.5 million people and generating revenue of £80 billion.
The Government are committed to supporting art and design colleges and to underpinning the provision of the broad range of teaching and training which they offer to students. Students enrol on art and design courses with many different aspirations: to progress to higher education; with a wish, often long held, to fulfil a talent; as a leisure interest or with a very determined career intention. The range of college provision is extraordinarily diverse. Art and design includes the traditional artistic disciplines—painting, drawing, sculpture, print-making and the full range of design specialisms. Although the disciplines encompassed are various, underlying them is a shared emphasis on personal creativity.
I dispute any suggestion that personal creativity is not valued in our art colleges. I am sorry to hear that the daughter of the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, is giving up her course. I do not know which art college he was referring to which gave these identical marks on essays on Kant and Hegel and post-modernism—I suppose it is just possible that all the students wrote essays of a similar standard. However, I hope that his daughter has a successful career and that she might perhaps consider returning at some time.
Surveys of employment available in the area of art and design often use overlapping definitions, but its importance is often underestimated. It makes an enormous contribution to the economy, bigger than perhaps many people imagine. The Financial Times has made an assessment that this sector employs more people than the high street banks and building societies combined. We are looking at something approaching 800,000 people, with a turnover to match.
The importance of art and design in the arts industries is a consequence of the very high standing in the world enjoyed by British designers and creative technicians. They include household names such as the artist David Hockney, designers such as Sir Terence Conran and James Dyson, and fashion designers such as John Galliano and Zandra Rhodes. Of course, we could mention many others. Most practitioners who contribute to the vigorous national culture for which this country is renowned began their careers in further and higher education courses in art and design. As well as preparing them for employment, these courses educate students to become enlightened consumers of the arts and the media, something we should not forget.
Chris Smith has recently said that the present 50 per cent of the population who enjoy or take part in the arts should be increased to two-thirds within the next 10 years. I hope that his prediction proves to be right. Also, we know that the arts, when taken together with sport and leisure, can contribute to neighbourhood renewal, urban regeneration, and can help to counter social exclusion.
296
Perhaps I may advise the noble Viscount that I do not think there is any evidence that fewer people want to go into the arts. There are 15 specialist art and design colleges—seven are in the further education sector and eight are in higher education. Although HEFCE does not technically regard it as a specialist art and design college, there is the London Institute which covers the Camberwell College of Arts, which counts among its past students the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and there are the other well known colleges which comprise the London institutes, such as St. Martin's, which I think is now known as Central and St. Martin's; Chelsea; the London College of Fashion, and the London College of Printing.
There are about 5,000 students studying art and design in the seven FE colleges and 8,000 in HE in its eight specialist colleges. Around 14 per cent of those students are postgraduates. The London Institute, through its five colleges, adds a further 6,000 art and design students, again with around 14 per cent being postgraduates. We must not forget that this is only a part, albeit a very central part, of the much wider picture. Some 330,000 students are studying art and design in other colleges in the FE sector and over 80,000 students are studying art and design at other HE institutions. Overall, there are around 430,000 students on art and design courses.
Incidentally, I am not sure that I really agree with the implied criticisms of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, about the merger of some of the former art colleges with the polytechnics, which happened under the previous administration. I believe that those new universities, as they have subsequently become, are providing very good courses in art and design for many of the students to whom I have just referred.
I turn now to the issue of funding. I do not want to get into arguments about what the previous administration did. I do not want to dwell on the fact that there was a 40 per cent reduction in per capita funding for students in higher education; nor do I want to dwell on the collapse in funding for further education colleges when the demand-led expansion was introduced. What I do want to say, however, is that this Government have acted to restore funding in both further and higher education and that, of course, the art colleges will have benefited very substantially from that. The settlement following the Comprehensive Spending Review was excellent news for both FE and HE. For further education, another £725 million is being made available over the next two years with another £776 million for HE.
I cannot answer the precise questions of the noble Baroness about the art colleges' share in these overall figures, but we shall certainly write to her. What I can say is that specialist FE colleges receive over £12 million per annum. The number of students is expected to rise by 8 per cent over the next three years and the number of students studying art and design is expected to rise by 12 per cent. Again I think that that adds to what I said to the noble Viscount earlier.
In higher education, the specialist art and design institutions are getting over £30 million in the current academic year which has just started. That is over

297
11 per cent more than last year. Again, the somewhat downbeat assessment by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, was not entirely accurate. However, I think that he was referring to some of the cuts that had taken place earlier.
Unfortunately, I have run out of time and I shall not be able to pick up on all the other questions including those that related to funding of overseas students. However, I wish to say briefly that international students bring great benefits to the UK—financial, commercial and artistic. It is a very good business. But those students also bring with them a lot of talent. I do not accept that we are simply taking in rich students from abroad at the expense of able students. Nor would I accept that the art institutions are overcharging those students. As the noble Viscount said, the provision of art and design is expensive. They charge full-cost fees, but they are not above the actual cost of provision.
I conclude by saying that the specialist colleges and courses in art and design play a vital part both in our society and our economy. I can give my assurance to noble Lords who have spoken in the debate that the Government will continue to give their full commitment and support to our art and design colleges.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until 8.50 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.42 to 8.50 p.m.]

Greater London Authority Bill
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 20.
[Amendments Nos. 50 to 53 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 54:
After Clause 22, insert the following new clause—
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
(" .—(1) The Authority shall pay to the Mayor and the Assembly members salaries at such levels—

(a) as the Authority from time to time determines; or

(b) before the first determination, as the Secretary of State directs.

(2) The Authority may pay to the Mayor and the Assembly members, in respect of expenses incurred in the exercise of their functions, allowances at such levels—

(a) as the Authority may from time to time determine; or

(b) before the first determination, as the Secretary of State may direct.

(3) A determination or direction under subsection (1) above may provide—

(a) for a higher level of salary to be payable to the Mayor than to any Assembly member;

(b) for higher levels of salaries to be payable to Assembly members holding the offices specified in subsection (4) below than to other Assembly members; and

(c) for different salaries to be payable to Assembly members holding different such offices.

(4) The offices mentioned in subsection (3)(b) above are—

(a) Deputy Mayor;

(b) Chair of the Assembly.

(5) A determination or direction under subsection (2) above may provide for different allowances for different cases.
(6) A determination under this section may provide for levels of salaries or allowances to change from time to time by reference to a specified formula.
(7) The Authority's functions of making determinations under this section shall be functions of the Authority which are exercisable by the Mayor and the Assembly acting jointly on behalf of the Authority.
(8) The standing orders of the Authority must include provision for the publication of every determination under this section.
(9) The Secretary of State shall publish any direction under this section as soon as is reasonably practicable after it is given.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, there is a range of amendments involved here. They attempt to carry out some quite straightforward things although. in the light of events of the past hour, I am not entirely sure that that will convince people. These amendments provide for the authority to pay the mayor and the assembly members salaries and expenses and for the abatement of those salaries where the members hold other paid public office to which they have been elected or appointed. They provide for the authority to establish a pensions scheme both for the mayor and the assembly and for the authority to publish details each year of salaries and expenses which have been paid and the financial provisions which have been made for pensions. There is also provision for assembly members to be excluded from the right to claim an attendance allowance or other remuneration from the fire authority and the London Development Agency. Provision is already made for that as regards the Metropolitan Police Authority. Of course, assembly members cannot be appointed to TfL. The other minor amendments in this group are consequential.
In this context perhaps I should also mention that my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister has invited the Senior Salaries Review Body to make recommendations to him about the initial levels of salaries which should be paid to the mayor and assembly members and to recommend an uprating mechanism. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I would like to check that when the Minister refers to a range of subjects he is also speaking to Amendment No. 55.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I should have said that in moving Amendment No. 54 I was also speaking to Amendments Nos. 55 to 57, 60, 536, 539, 566 and to Amendment No. 572 as regards pensions.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister. That is very clear. I speak in particular to subsection (3) of Amendment No. 55. Why should an authority member, who is also a member of another public body, suffer the penalty of having his or her salary reduced to a specific proportion of what it would otherwise be or to a

299
specified amount? First, that appears not to be very logical. Secondly, it appears to be a very dangerous precedent. If one works for the family firm or is employed in the private sector, one's salary would remain the same as that for an assembly member. However, because one is appointed or elected to another public body, it appears that the purpose of this amendment is to reduce any allowance received.
If the idea is that one would only be able to serve on one public body because the financial penalties involved in serving on more would preclude one from doing so, I believe that the Government should say so. It is the electorate's choice to decide whether it is a good idea for a person to serve on more than one public body. A principle has been established that there is some point in having people to serve on more than one body because they bring experience and cross-fertilisation of ideas from one body to another. To penalise them financially, as this amendment seems to do, does not achieve any useful purpose. I imagine that it would be very counter-productive for someone who did not have any salaried employment for any reason. It might be a parent who chooses to stay at home to look after the children but who has positions on two public bodies. It might be someone who has retired but is still able to bring considerable expertise to more than one public body.
I ask the Minister to say what is the point of reducing a person's salary simply because he or she has been elected to another public body. One should bear in mind that quite often an appointment to some of the public bodies, commissions and so forth, which the Government have introduced, have been dependent on expertise gained, for example, in a local authority. That might equally be the position as regards a London authority member. I would like the Minister to explain exactly the purpose of this amendment. I am minded to disagree with what appears to be its purpose.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I shall be very grateful to the noble Lord if he can tell me the position under these amendments of what one might call "provisions" made for members such as free transport, free canteens, staff and other facilities which might be provided for members. Do the appropriate costs have to be published as well as the salaries and allowances or are the advantages for the members of the assembly provided in this way free from public inspection, at least in their minutiae?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as regards the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, if there were a subsidy for catering facilities or transport, that would appear in the mayor's budget and therefore be subject to scrutiny. It would not necessarily cross-refer to the abatement and the other provisions of these amendments. Nevertheless these provisions would be in the public arena.
In reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, the position is that these measures generalise the provisions that already exist in relation
300
to the dual function of MPs and MEPs. There are Members of Parliament who are members of both the European Parliament and the Westminster Parliament. They take only one salary. There are similar provisions for persons who are members of the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Westminster Parliament. Given that these are paid, full-time jobs in the London assembly, it is re-running the same provisions concerning their positions.
I agree that as regards Amendment No. 55 and subsection (1)(c), the matter is widened somewhat further. But the same considerations apply. We are not against people being appointed or elected to more than one authority or more than one tier of government, but, in principle at least, we are against their having cumulative salaries for so doing. That is already the position as regards MEPs and legislation passed concerning Scotland and Wales.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 55 to 57:
After Clause 22, insert the following new clause—
LIMIT ON SALARIES OF MEMBERS OF OTHER PUBLIC BODIES
(" .—(1) The Secretary of State may by order make provision such as is specified in subsection (3) below in relation to any Authority members to whom relevant remuneration is payable—

(a) pursuant to a resolution (or combination of resolutions) of either House of Parliament relating to the remuneration of members of that House;

(b) under section 1 of the European Parliament (Pay and Pensions) Act 1979 (remuneration of United Kingdom MEPs); or

(c) in respect of their membership of any other public body (whether elected or appointed) which is specified in the order.

(2) In this section—

"Authority member" means—

(a) the Mayor; or

(b) an Assembly member;

"relevant remuneration" means

(a) a salary; or

(b) any allowance of a description specified by order made by the Secretary of State.

(3) The provision referred to in subsection (1) above is provision that the amount of the salary payable to an Authority member under section (Salaries and expenses) above—

(a) shall be reduced to a specified proportion of what it otherwise would be or to a specified amount; or

(b) shall be reduced by the amount of the relevant remuneration payable to him as mentioned in subsection (1) above, by a specified proportion of that amount or by some other specified amount.

(4) An order under subsection (1) above may make different provision in relation to Authority members—

(a) to whom (apart from the order) different amounts of salary would be payable under section (Salaries and expenses) above;

(b) to whom different amounts of relevant remuneration are payable as mentioned in subsection (1) above.

(5) Such an order may include provision that it (or a specified part of it) is not to apply to a specified Authority member or description of Authority members—

(a) either indefinitely or for a specified period; and

301

(b) either unconditionally or subject to the fulfilment of specified conditions.")

After Clause 22, insert the following new clause—
PENSIONS
(" .—(1) The Authority may make such provision for the payment of pensions to or in respect of persons who have ceased to be the Mayor or an Assembly member—

(a) as the Authority may from time to time determine; or

(b) before the first determination, as the Secretary of State may direct.

(2) The provision which may be made under this section includes, in particular, provision for—

(a) the making of payments towards the provision of superannuation benefits;

(b) establishing and administering one or more schemes for the provision of such benefits;

(c) the making of such payments as are mentioned in paragraph (a) above to any scherne (whether or not established or administered by virile of paragraph (b) above) of which the Mayor or an Assembly member may be or become a member.

(3) Different provision may be made under this section for different cases.
(4) The Authority's function of determining the provision that may be made under subsection (1) above shall be a function of the Authority which is exercisable by the Mayor and the Assembly acting jointly on behalf of the Authority.
(5) The standing orders of the Assembly must include provision for the publication of every determination under this section.
(6) The Secretary of State shall publish any direction under this section as soon as is reasonably practicable after it is given.
(7) A determination or direction under this section shall not affect pensions in payment before the making of the determination or the giving of the direction.")
After Clause 22, insert the following new clause
PUBLICATION OF INFORMATION ABOUT REMUNERATION PAID
(" . The standing orders of the Authority must contain provision for the publication of information relating to sums paid under section; (Salaries and expenses) and (Pensions) above for each financial year.")
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 23 [Declaration of acceptance of office]:
[Amendment Nos. 58 and 59 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 13, line 30, at end insert—
("(6A) No salary, and no payment towards the provision of superannuation benefits, shall be paid under this Act to or in respect of the Mayor or an Assembly member until he has complied with the requirements of subsection (1) above.
(6B) Subsection (6A) above does not affect any entitlement of the Mayor or an Assembly member to payments in respect of the period before he complies with the requirements of subsection (1) above once he has complied with those requirements.")
On Question amendment agreed to.
9 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 60A:
After Clause 23, insert the following new clause—
REFERENDUM
(" .—(1) At the end of the eleventh year after the first Assembly is elected the Mayor shall arrange for a referendum to be held to take place at any time within the ensuing six months.
(2) The persons entitled to vote in such referendum shall be the persons entitled to vote in any local election in Greater London at that date.
(3) The questions to be asked at such referendum shall be—

(a) Are you satisfied with the present structure of the Greater London Authority consisting of a mayor and an elected assembly of 25 members, none of whom represent an actual single borough'? YES/NO

(b) Would you prefer the Assembly to consist of 33 members, each one representing a single one of the 32 London Boroughs together with the Common Council of the City of London? YES/NO

(4) The Mayor shall transmit the result of the referendum ':o the Secretary of State and to both Houses of Parliament.
(5) Each Parliament being sovereign and one Parliament being unable to bind a later one, the Secretary of State shall not be bound by the result of the referendum.
(6) The Secretary of State may by Order authorise (but not require) the Mayor to include further questions in the referendum if so requested by the Mayor.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, when I introduced an identically worded amendment in Committee I described it as a probing amendment, and said that my noble friends and I would be extremely interested to hear what the Government had to say. I must confess that I was not in the least surprised that, as with so many of the constructive amendments which we have introduced in this and in other Bills, the Government arbitrarily rejected it out of hand.
What surprised me was the entirely specious arguments advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, because normally we can rely on him to have carefully studied our points first. He began his speech by saying that he rarely makes cheap political points. However, this was clearly one of those rare occasions. He said,
"13 or 14 years ago the previous Government, in the face of massive opposition in London and without any talk of a referendum, completely demolished the structure of local government".—[Official Report, 14/6/99; col. 122.]
As I tried to explain then, a referendum was not required, because the intention to reconstruct London's government was clearly set out in our manifesto for the 1983 election, which we won with a substantial overall majority of 144. As to the massive opposition, that came from the Labour Party, which controlled the GLC as it then was in the person of Ken Livingstone. The expenditure for his campaign, "Say no to no say", was some £20 million of public funds. As we are in the area of not making cheap political points, I shall refrain from saying that the Labour Party does not seem to be falling over itself to be nominating Mr Livingstone as its candidate for mayor.
The noble Lord went on to ask,
"What will happen under the noble Baroness's referendum if the electors of London answer "no" and "no" to the two questions? Where would that leave us? The assembly would be abolished and nothing would be left in its place".—[Official Report, 14/6/99; col. 122.]
That extraordinary argument is what prompted me to suggest, as I did a few moments ago, that the noble Lord has not prepared himself for that particular debate with his usual care. The answer "no" to either or to both questions would not have the slightest effect without some further primary legislation.
My proposed subsection (5) spelled out the situation with absolute clarity, as it does again here. Perhaps I may read it for the benefit of noble Lords who do not have the text before them.
"Each Parliament being sovereign and one Parliament being unable to bind a later one, the Secretary of State shall not be bound by the result of the referendum".
In other words, the Government of the day need not take a blind bit of notice of the wishes of Londoners expressed in such a referendum. I reminded the House that, as recently as 3rd June this year, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said,
"I think the idea of regulations within the expiry date is an attractive one. There may very well be the case for sunset clauses in new regulation".
Is there not an identical case for new legislation? Or are the Government saying that legislation by the Department of the Environment is different from legislation from the DTI? The Government claim that their policy is to listen to the people. But by refusing to accept this amendment, which allows them simply to have second thoughts after the lengthy period of 11 years—in other words, well into a fourth mayoral term—the Government are saying that they will listen to the people, but they will not allow them to say anything. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, said, the amendment before us today seeks to require the mayor to hold a referendum on the GLA 11 years after its creation and, if one studies the wording of the questions proposed, it may be possible for some people to interpret those questions as having rather a slant towards seeking a particular answer.
The Government do not feel able to accept the amendments. The people of London voted in May last year in favour of the Government's proposals for a Greater London Authority on the basis of clearly laid out proposals contained in the White Paper A Mayor and Assembly for London. It does not seem sensible to place on the face of the Bill a requirement to hold a referendum at an arbitrary date in the future on questions which relate to the current policy position of the party opposite—proposals which were considered and rejected in the context of the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill and during the earlier stages of consideration of this legislation. It is entirely possible that that policy may have changed by the time the 11 years come around.
We are not sympathetic to the amendment and ask the party opposite not to pursue it.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, as the noble Baroness is aware, we were not happy with the
304
question having two parts, on both the mayor and the assembly. Nor, I believe, was the other Opposition party happy, but with regard to different aspects. I understand and listened carefully to what the Minister said, but I wonder what would happen if the people of London decided that they did not like the assembly and mayor. There would be no provision for them to do anything about them, whereas they could take part in the referendum which I am suggesting and nothing much would happen. But in view of what the noble Baroness has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25 [The general power of the Authority]:
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 14, line 18, leave out from ("have") to end of line 19 and insert ("the powers conferred by this Act")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 62. I shall not speak to Amendment No. 63 because in due course I shall not be moving it.
When I spoke on this amendment in Committee, my noble friends and I had tabled a further three amendments. Having studied carefully what the Minister said in reply, we have decided to drop four of them, but we still wish to pursue the remaining two. I hope that the Minister has given equal weight to what we had to say and will now accept the amendments we propose, particularly as we accepted all the arguments which he gave in regard to the amendments which we have now dropped.
Amendment No. 61 deletes the sweeping, unlimited, unfettered power given to the authority
"to do anything which it considers will further any one or more of its principal purposes".
That is power to do absolutely anything without any restraint whatsoever. The provision grants the authority the power to do that without even being required to show that what it is doing will actually further its objects. I can imagine what a field day the lawyers will have over the interpretation of that provision. I have no objection in principle to lawyers having a field day; my husband is a lawyer. But because the Government refuse to define more closely the sweeping powers they are giving to the authority, sooner or later—and probably sooner—the mayor, with the connivance of the assembly, is going to want to do something not specifically referred to in the Act. Someone or some group or other is going to haul them up before the High Court for an order that it is ultra vires. I beg the pardon of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice. Legal Latin is now verboten.
Someone will claim that they are doing something beyond their powers, and he will probably be right. Those who do not learn from history are bound to repeat it. It is surely not necessary to remind your Lordships of the excursions into matters that were absolutely none of its concern which were indulged in by the former GLC under the leadership of one of the present aspirants for the Labour Party's nomination as mayor. Frolics and diversions were one of the causes

305
for its abolition and are now the reason why the Labour Party is desperately searching for the "ABK" candidate—"Anyone but Ken".
I shall not give a list of the things which were published in a set of booklets called The London Industrial Strategy. I could do so, of course, and I do have the list. However, I have no intention of doing that because there is no point in dwelling on the past. When the Government promoted the creation of the GLA., they promised to ensure that the excesses of its predecessor could not be repeated. Nevertheless, it is giving the blank cheque contained in Clause 25(1).
Theoretically, what could happen under this legislation? Clause 25(5)(a) of the Bill requires the authority in exercising its powers to promote the health of persons in Greater London. What does that mean? Does it mean that it could try to build its own hospitals or make health and safety regulations different from the rest of the country? Or does improving economic development and wealth creation in Greater London mean that it could start to finance workers' co-operatives, like the late-lamented Meridian, or could direct industry hither or thither in London? Does promoting the improvement of the environment of Greater London include making the entire area motor vehicle free and forcing everyone to travel by bicycle? I do not even know what promoting social development in Greater London means. But surely that is a wide enough remit to give the authority power to promote, if it wished to, tea dances in Hyde Park.
It is no use for the Minister to say, "But, of course, none of those things could possibly happen". Once the Bill becomes law, it could, and would, be far too late to stop it. All we ask in this amendment is that the authority's powers should be those specified by the Act and not those which it believes it could try to assume because of the blank cheque that the Government are asking Parliament to write.
The reply of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, to this particular amendment was to accuse the Opposition of "a degree of schizophrenia". Then he went on to claim in a rather curious metaphor that a general power is not an open-ended Trojan horse. An open-ended Trojan horse is a contradiction in terms. If the wooden horse had been open-ended, the Trojans would have been able to see right through it and the whole object would have been defeated. The Opposition and anyone with an elementary knowledge of the English language can see right through the meaning of this clause. It says in totally unambiguous, unequivocal terms that the authority can do anything that it considers will further any one or more of its principal purposes. I emphasise "anything" that it "considers"; not even anything that actually or reasonably might be assumed to further its principal purposes; not even anything that the man on the Clapham omnibus would consider would do so.
The noble Lord pointed out that Clause 1(3) says:
"The Authority shall have the functions which are transferred to, or conferred or imposed on, the Authority by or under this Act or any other Act".
306
Exactly, my Lords. That is precisely what our amendment says. The amendment prevents the authority from assuming additional powers not specifically granted to it by Parliament under, in the words of Clause 1(3),
"this Act or any other Act".
We do not want the authority to attempt to take advantage of the contradiction between the plain words of Clause 1(3) and the ambiguous and vague words of Clause 25(1).
I draw your Lordships' attention to Section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972, when a similar provision appeared on the statute book for the first time. That section stated that,
"a local authority shall have power to do anything … which is calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to. the discharge of any of their functions".
That is a vastly different set of criteria and a vastly different test to the airy-fairy test of merely what the GLA considers will further its principal purposes. If the words of the clause, as presently drafted, are not a blank cheque, then why will the Government not say so and tighten up the wording in accordance with the 28 year-old precedent that I have just cited, so that the authority cannot attempt. or even be tempted, to assume powers that it was never intended to have?
I turn now to Amendment No. 62. This simple amendment requires the authority to act in cooperation with the boroughs and with the City of London. What could possibly be wrong with that? The mayor and the authority will have strategies and objectives which will need the co-operation of the boroughs in order to make them work. That is sensible, practical politics. Co-operation between the mayor, the authority and the boroughs is a necessary relationship for the future government of London. On the last occasion when this amendment came before noble Lords, I pointed out—I apologise for repeating myself—that in their wisdom the Government have decided that there should be 14 super-constituencies instead of having one assembly member for each borough. That means that each constituency member of the assembly will be covering pieces of between two and three boroughs.
How will the differing and perhaps conflicting interests of each borough be represented? The Government have answered that by saying that Clause 27 requires the authority to "consult" with others on how to promote their purposes. However, we all know that "consult" is a weasel word. Consultation does not require the authority to take a blind bit of notice of the representations it receives. If the authority decides upon a course of action, in reality it will work only with the co-operation of and in conjunction with the boroughs that are involved.
In a Bill which gives the authority the purposes described by such platitudes as "promoting social development", "promoting improvement of the environment" and "contributing towards the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom", surely there is room for a slight, almost imperceptible nod of the head in the direction of

307
furthering good relations with the London boroughs whose residents will have entrusted the mayor and the assembly with such wide ranging powers?
In his reply on the previous occasion, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said that such an amendment would place too great a restriction on the mayor's freedom to act. That is an admission that the mayor is to have supervening powers to override the wishes and views of boroughs or their residents. However, many of the mayor's strategies will work properly only if carried out in connection with—and that means with the co-operation of—the boroughs. The efforts of the mayor alone on biodiversity, municipal waste, air quality and ambient noise, as well as road traffic, will amount to little unless he acts alongside the boroughs.
The Minister said that he accepted the intention behind the amendment. For that reason, I am disappointed that the Government have not offered any concessions or brought back any proposals of their own to meet our genuine worries. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, by a curious grouping decision, I shall speak to Amendment No. 64. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 105 and 112, which are similar in their purpose and intent.
Crime and crime prevention are issues of the greatest importance to Londoners. I believe that, along with transport, crime will be a key issue in the mayoral elections next year. As a result of the recent Crime and Disorder Act, which I greatly welcomed, I shall repeat what I said at Committee stage; namely, that individual boroughs have a duty to co-operate with the police and probation services in the formulation of local strategies for the reduction of crime and disorder in their areas.
The amendments seek to ensure that the mayor and the GLA play their part in ensuring that the mayor's strategies and the exercise of the GLA's powers—whether in planning urban regeneration, the environment or transport—contribute to the prevention of crime and community safety. Strategies of this kind are judged in respect of health and sustainable development. It seems an extraordinary omission that crime prevention is not included in the list. If anything, the issue is of equal or greater importance to Londoners. Opportunities for crime reduction and prevention exist if support is given at the strategic stage, and there is a clear recognition of the interlinking of crime with many other areas of policy. Clearly, if we are to crack crime, we need also to tackle other social and environmental factors.
There is now a strong recognition that tackling the problems of disadvantaged neighbourhoods by embracing all policy areas is the key to significant success in preventing crime. We need to understand the problems and to bring residents into the centre of regeneration. We need to target economic development, to strengthen those communities and to ensure that long-term commitment to sustainable neighbourhood regeneration exists at all levels of government, including regional government.
308
The GLA powers and the mayor's strategies that are proposed in the amendment would comprise a strong strand of crime prevention provisions, which would assist in solving some of London's seemingly intractable problems.
On these Benches we make no apologies for bringing back the amendment on Report—I do not believe that we received a fully satisfactory answer in Committee—and we shall bring it back at Third Reading, if necessary. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide more enlightenment and agree with the amendment. The logic is quite clear: the new MPA will not provide the necessary cross-departmental scrutiny of either the powers or the strategies in the process. The amendment is vital in order to ensure that all those strategies and powers are properly directed towards reducing crime in London.
Lord Renton: My Lords, Clause 25 is arguably the most important clause in the Bill because it deals with the powers of the proposed Greater London Authority. I support Amendments Nos.61, 62 and 63 which stand in the name of my noble friend Lady Miller of Hendon. I should like to comment briefly on each of them.
Amendment No. 61 is a very neat piece of drafting on her part. It shortens and clarifies the meaning of subsection (1).
Amendment No. 62 states:
"In furthering its purposes the Authority shall act in cooperation with the London boroughs and the Common Council".
I should have thought that that was essential in order to avoid conflict.
Amendment No.63 incorporates the concept of observing
"any national policy for the time being in force".
That is a very good idea, but I should like to make a minor drafting point and to draw the attention of my noble friend Lady Miller to the fact that those words, instead of coming after the word "to" in line 28 should come after the word "further". That would make greater sense and clarify the situation.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones has spoken very powerfully about community safety. I should like to add that I, and no doubt he, heartily agreed with the Minister's words at the last stage which were used to argue against our amendment, but which entirely supported it, and that is that the mayor's strategies and his or her activities would clearly be directed at crime reduction and community safety. He asked what other logical role there could be for the mayor. Quite so. The new authority has a strategic role, but crime prevention and community safety is one of those holistic subjects that should be the aim of London's strategic government.
Amendment No. 66 is also, a little oddly, grouped with these amendments. It proposes the deletion of Clause 26(8) which provides that the Secretary of

309
State may, by order. impose limits on the expenditure which may be incurred by the authority by virtue of Clause 25(1).
The Minister stated that the new authority must be small and streamlined, as designed, but that reserve powers are needed in case an irresponsible mayor funded a significant expansion of the GLA or essential services were starved of funds as a result of those decisions. He said that they are reserve powers that would be used sparingly. From the drafting of subsection (8), it is not clear to me that they are reserve powers which would be used sparingly.
Why is this subsection necessary, given that all the normal constraints on local government spending will apply to the new authority? This sledgehammer of a clause could undo all the good which we hope that the GLA will do. To take one of the worst reasons, it is perhaps because we have a centralising government in power who do not like the success of the authority. We have been through arguments time and again in this House as to whether it is appropriate for electors to judge whether an administration has more or less hit the right level of spending. I shall not take up time by repeating those arguments. I am sure they are well known to all of your Lordships.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, a number of different and contradictory points have been raised. Contrary to the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, the effect of Amendment No. 61 would be to deny the authority the ability it must have to co-operate with other statutory authorities and organisations to ensure that London receives the level and quality of strategic services it deserves and needs.
The noble Baroness seems to think that this would give the authority an open-ended power. I am not sure about the Trojan horse aspect. Clearly, I need to watch my metaphors. However, this is not an open-ended power. As I explained in Committee, the GLA is a statutory corporation and, as such, has only the functions—in other words, the powers and duties—conferred on it by statute.
Clause 1(3) clearly states:
"The Authority shall nave the functions which are transferred to, or conferred or imposed on, the Authority by or under this Act or any other Act".
It cannot, therefore, simply adopt new functions on an ad hoc basis.
Clause 25 confers a general power on the GLA but limits that power to particular purposes which, to differentiate them from other purposes for which the authority may exercise functions—for example, functions for the purposes of the four functional bodies—are defined as its "principal purposes".
The provisions of Clause 26 prevent the mayor from intruding into areas which are the statutory responsibility of other authorities and bodies. It is therefore clear that the GLA cannot incur expenditure in directly providing, for example, housing, education, health or social services. The guidance that the Secretary of State will provide about the use of the
310
general power, under the provisions of Clause 25(7), will make it absolutely clear that the GLA should not use the power to provide services where those are provided by other authorities or public bodies.
If the GLA did seek to do so, the Bill also gives the Secretary of State powers under Clause 26(7) to add to the list of services on which the GLA is prohibited from incurring expenditure.
The Secretary of State also has the reserve power to limit the expenditure of the authority using its general power in pursuit of its general purposes. That is here, in subsection (8), which Amendment No. 66, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, seeks to remove. That provides a safeguard against an irresponsible mayor diverting such a large proportion of the authority's resources to discretionary activities so that essential services are starved of funds.
As I have stated in earlier debates on this Bill, we have always made it clear that the GLA will be a relatively small authority, streamlined in terms of staff and costs. It will spend the money on services which Londoners wish to see and not on extravagant, diversionary expenditure of the kind alluded to or on activities other than those which the Bill decides should be the functions of the GLA.
However, it is the case that the GLA should he able to co-operate with those authorities in the London area in co-ordinating or facilitating the provision of services at a strategic level. That is clear from the main clauses of the Bill.
I would argue therefore that Amendment No. 62 is unnecessary in dealing with the question of cooperation with other authorities, because the mayor would both need and want to act in co-operation with the London boroughs and the Common Council of the City in pursuit of the authority's purposes. Their interests are common and the successful achievement of the GLA's purposes relies on co-operation not only with the boroughs but with all London's major players. We have tabled amendments to Clause 31 to enable the mayor to delegate his or her functions to the Common Council of the City where such an arrangement is agreed. Before the mayor can exercise the general power of the authority, he or she must consult the boroughs or the Common Council where their interests are likely to be affected. In preparing or revising any strategy, the mayor must always consult the London boroughs and the Common Council of the City.
There is, therefore, already every opportunity for the boroughs and the Common Council to make their views known to the mayor, and the mayor must act reasonably in the knowledge of those views. On the other hand, we do not believe that the mayor's actions should be prescribed by being made subject to—and to the veto of—the boroughs or the Common Council of the City. That is what Amendment No. 62 would require. They do not want to perceive the mayor as overriding the legitimate concerns of the boroughs, yet we do not want the boroughs to veto the mayor's actions in the exercise of his legitimate functions.

311
Amendment No. 64, to which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, spoke, would require the authority, in exercising its general power, to do so in a way which is calculated to prevent crime and to promote community safety. Again, I argue that this amendment is unnecessary, as are the other amendments to which he spoke. It is quite clear that one of the principal purposes of the authority—to promote social development—must include crime prevention, community security and other matters related to the safety and security of citizens. Therefore, crime prevention is not simply the role of the Metropolitan Police Authority, but that factor is subsumed under the general requirement to promote social development. The general power may be exercised only in pursuit of those purposes, and strategies must have regard to those purposes.
I understood the noble Baroness to say that she would not move Amendment No. 63, so I shall not refer to that. In relation to the other amendments, I think that some of them could be damaging as regards constraining the mayor's powers unnecessarily. Others could be damaging, particularly Amendment No. 66, which seeks to delete the power of the Secretary of State to constrain the mayor, in extreme circumstances, from engaging in extravagant and unnecessary expenditure.
Other amendments, such as Amendment No. 64, are unnecessary in that they are covered by the general purposes referred to in the Bill. I hope that noble Lords will not press these amendments. They would undermine the purpose of the authority, and in some cases they are unnecessary.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I wonder whether I may remind your Lordships that this is Report stage and it is not possible for noble Lords to speak after the Minister.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I would not wish to undermine the purposes of the clause, as the noble Lord the Minister has suggested my amendments might do. I shall read very carefully what he has said. I know he will forgive me if I say that I am amused when he says that something is not necessary—and he says it to me very often. I often reply that such amendments are therefore not necessarily unnecessary.
Perhaps I may comment on Amendment No. 63. I shall not be moving it now because Clause 33 appeared to be a better place to put that particular amendment. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 61.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 62 to 64 not moved.]
Clause 26 [Limits of the general power]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 15, line 30, leave out paragraph (b)
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 26 sets out to define the limits of the general power in Clause 25. Therefore, I am somewhat puzzled by the drafting. I propose the amendment so that we can explore exactly what the limits might mean in one specific area. Clause 26 begins:
"The Authority shall not by virtue of section 25(1) above incur expenditure in doing anything which may be done by a functional body other than the London Development Agency".
Subsection (3) says:
"The Authority shall not by virtue of section 25(1) above incur expenditure in providing—

(a) any housing".

That is fine, but subsection (4) says:
"Any reference in subsection (3) above to the provision of housing—

(a) includes a references to the management of housing: but

(b) does not include a reference to the acquisition by the Authority of existing housing accommodation and the making of that accommodation available on a temporary basis for one or more of the principal purposes of the Authority".

I must admit that I would like to hear from the Minister in his reply what the limits of that particular phraseology might be.
If the GLA can acquire housing but cannot manage it, I am not quite sure what it is to do with it. Presumably, the authority would have to make it available for someone else to manage. But who else? As far as I can see, it would probably be one of the other statutory authorities. I do not know who else would be likely to want to manage housing in this way. In that case, it seems to me that it ought almost certainly to fall within the prohibition of Clause 26(3).
I may have misunderstood the purpose of the provision. Of course, it is possible that the authority might wish to purchase existing housing accommodation in order to demolish it for some other development. That would be a perfectly acceptable reason for purchasing housing. However, I am not sure that "demolition" would count as the management of housing, although it is a form of management. If that is the purpose of the provision, I think that the clause could perhaps have been drafted somewhat more felicitously. In any event, it seems to me that the existing drafting leaves an element of uncertainty. I particularly wish to hear the Minister's explanation regarding the exact nature of the restrictions and limitations of this power and why subsection (4) appears to be in some conflict with subsection (3) of the clause. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord has raised too many anxieties in this respect. Amendment No. 65 would prevent the authority from acquiring and providing housing on a temporary basis—covered by Clause 26(4)(b)—for one or more of its principal purposes or for purposes incidental to such purposes.
The provision in subsection 26(4)(b) will not provide the authority with an opportunity to become a housing authority and, therefore, go into housing management in that general sense. However, it would permit the authority to exercise a rational approach in, for

313
example, its regeneration programme where it might be necessary to engage in the temporary decanting of tenants and rehousing, or the acquisition of property, short-term. which was tenanted. There would be other projects. I am not entirely sure whether, for example, if what is now the Highways Agency—which will become part of the TfL—is covered by this clause or a later clause, but very frequently it acquires houses for road schemes which need to be tenanted for a number of years. That is for a temporary purpose incidental to the main purpose and the Highways Agency therefore has housing on its books. To some extent TfL will inherit some of that. There will no doubt be similar issues in regeneration schemes and a number of other building projects.
The amendment would deny the authority and its functional bodies the flexibility it will need to act in this way and undermine its ability to act in relation to the purposes and functions we have given it. Our proposal is not the thin end of the wedge to it becoming a housing authority.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. He has clone a great deal to calm my concerns. He has defined the purposes behind the subsection which might otherwise have caused concern. I shall study the reply with some care. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 66 not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 16, line 8, at end insert ("except where it is the case that the Secretary of State is empowered under any other enactment to impose limits on any expenditure which may be incurred by the Authority,")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, had indicated in tabling Amendment No. 66 her wish to excise Clause 26(8) from the face of the Bill. I have considerable sympathy for that wish to see this particular phraseology outwith the Bill.
I wonder why we spent so long working in the House on the Local Government Act last summer. The Local Government Act begins with defining local authorities and determines that the Greater London Authority is a local authority. If one goes on through the Act, Part II, which deals with the regulation of council tax and precepts, says that Schedule 1 shall have effect. Schedule 1 goes on:
"If in the Secretary of State's opinion the amount calculated by an authority as its budget requirement for a financial year (the year under consideration) is excessive, he may exercise his power to designate or nominate the authority under Section 52D below".
If one goes further, under Section 52E, which deals with designation for the year under consideration, one sees:
"He shall notify the authority in writing of…
"(d) the amount which he proposes should be the maximum for the amount calculated by the authority as its budget requirement for the year".
It seems that we have a wonderful duplication of legislation here. Rather than proposing to excise the phrase—which, it seemed to me, the Government were unlikely to accept—my amendment merely suggests that the power in Clause 26(8) should not be used except where it is the case that the Secretary of State is empowered under any other enactment to impose limits on expenditure; in other words, the Local Government Act should take precedence over this Bill and, therefore, the power would not be used.
It may be that I have missed something somewhere. Some of us in the House did a considerable amount of work—as did the Minister himself—to get the Local Government Act through. When we had done so, we thought we had done some good. When I see such a clause in this Bill, it makes me wonder whether one part of the relevant government department talks to another part of the relevant government department. It is possible that those responsible for drafting one Bill do not talk to those who are responsible for drafting another. In any event, it seems to me that we do not need both provisions. If the Bill is not appropriate, we should seek to amend subsection (8). In the mean time, I await the Minister's reply with considerable interest.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the noble Lord paid me the compliment of agreeing with my Amendment No. 66. I am not surprised; it repeated exactly an amendment that he tabled at the previous stage. I am afraid that I cannot pay him quite the same compliment, as I am not sure what is the proposed effect of his Amendment No. 67. However, I strongly agree with his point that we should be relying on other existing legislation. I am simply not sure about the way in which the proposal is framed.
The noble Lord's amendment enables me to ask the Minister to explain, if he can, in rather more detail than he did in regard to Amendment No. 66 how subsection (8) relates to Clause 25(1). In the previous debate he said that the subsection is to prevent expenditure on peripheral matters. But Clause 25(1) seems to deal with everything. It states that the authority,
"shall have power to do anything which it considers will further any one or more of its principal purposes".
In other words, it covers all the functions of the authority—what the authority does in order to promote its principal purposes. I am unable to see how Clause 28 is limited in the way that the noble Lord has argued. I hope that he will be able to assist me further on that point.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not entirely sure that I follow the noble Baroness's last point. I understand that she is concerned about the inter-relationship between Clause 26(8) and Clause 25(1). But as I understand it, the point of the noble Lord's amendment is that in this whole area there are adequate powers within the Local Government Act 1999, on which he rightly spent some happy hours before the Recess.

315
The point about the local government legislation, to which the GLA will clearly be subject, is that by and large it provides powers relating to the total budget and precept of the GLA. The provision in Clause 26(8) is not a power to limit the total expenditure of the GLA; it can only limit the amount within that total budget which is spent on activities other than those specific statutory functions under the general powers. That is why in the previous debate we were diverted into references to extravagant activities that were not part of the general purposes of the authority. So while the Local Government Act certainly deals with the total budget, it does not deal with that specific power in those specific circumstances. Therefore, we need that power within the Bill.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I hear what the Minister has to say. If he will forgive me, it seems to me that we are in danger of establishing a very nasty precedent which might be used to extend this principle to other areas of local government. The excuse could be made that we have accepted it in this legislation. We are invited to accept that the Secretary of State should have the power to limit the expenditure in a specific area of an authority's budget. I believe there is not an authority in the country that would not fight that to the death. It is a serious matter. Local authorities have perforce had to accept—because they are creatures created by legislation—that the Government should require powers to control their expenditure. The Local Government Act that was made law in the summer was passed with that provision as part of its purpose. It may be reasonable that the Government should control the overall expenditure of the local authority or authorities. Although there is now some academic evidence against it, they argue that the impact of local government expenditure on the nation's coffers is sufficiently significant to justify it.
That may be an acceptable argument, but when we reach the point where the Secretary of State has the power to control a specific part of an individual authority's budget I am obliged to part company with the Minister.
I shall study his reply with care. It is late in the evening, perhaps we have had sufficient excitement for a little while. We may need something later in the evening to wake us all up, therefore I shall not pursue the matter. However, I suggest that there is here an exceedingly dangerous principle. I can imagine that it might well be argued to extend the principle in other directions, and that would be wholly unacceptable. The Minister may say that that will not happen. This House and, I suspect, the other place have had a litany over a number of years and I do not wish to provide the opportunity for the principle to go further. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 27 [Consultation]:
[Amendment No.68 not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 16, line 37, at end insert—
("( ) In determining what consultation (if any) is appropriate under subsection (1) above, the Authority shall have regard to consultation undertaken in the preparation or revision of any applicable strategy.")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 69 is to explore a little further the relationship between the consultations on functions and strategies. Clause 27(1) gives the power to do anything which the authority considers will further one or more of its principal purposes. That is a wide power, but I do not quarrel with it. Under Clause 27(1), it is exercisable only after consultation with the bodies which the authorities think are appropriate. I hope it will not be thought that I am decrying or denying the importance of consultation, but I remain unclear how this links with consultation on the mayor's draft strategies, as provided by the Bill.
The amendment was spoken to in Committee; it was part of a wide-ranging group. Re-reading the debate, it seemed to me that it became lost in whether there should be a list of consultees under Clause 27(3), or additions to that provision. In considering the Bill, it has seemed to me throughout that the order of events is that the authority needs the power, then the mayor creates a strategy about exercising the power and then comes its exercise. So it would be appropriate to have regard to consultation which has already been carried out on the same subject. I apologise to the House for returning to the point, but I do not believe it was answered at the previous stage. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I find the amendment slightly confusing. As I understand it, the noble Baroness says that, if the mayor has already consulted on the preparation of the strategy, he needs to take account of that consultation as to whether, with whom and to what degree he needs to consult on the exercise of the powers.
In one sense it would automatically be the case that the mayor would take note of what consultation had taken place on the strategy and would make use of it; but I do not know that we need to legislate for that. The perverse effect of this, it seems to me, is that it could discourage the mayor from consulting about the use of the general power, using the excuse that he had consulted on the preparation of the strategy perhaps a matter of years previously.
I am sure that is not the intention, but the "if any" in the amendment might suggest it. We would wish to consider a continuous, iterative process between the mayor, the authority and the bodies which are the relevant consultees. This would seem to limit that. It may not have been the intention, but it could be the effect in certain circumstances.
I would therefore ask the noble Baroness to consider that and not to pursue the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the Minister and I probably take the same view. My concern is about whether it is properly expressed.

317
He is quite right: I certainly did not intend to limit consultation. I intended to direct the mayor's mind, not just to the amount of consultation but to those whom he or she consults, having regard to the comments that have come back as a result of the previous exercise. As he says, it should be an iterative process. The mayor, having regard to comments already made, should be considering very carefully whether the particular points should be explored in more depth.
I do not think that there is anything between us on the substance, and I certainly will not take any more time of the House on it tonight. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 70:
After Clause 27, insert the following new clause—
EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY
(" .—(1) The Authority shall make appropriate arrangements with a view to securing that—

(a) in the exercise of the power conferred on the Authority by section 25 above,

(b) in the formulation of the policies and proposals to be included in any of the strategies mentioned in section 33(1) below, and

(c) in the implementation of any of those strategies,

there is due regard to the principle that there should be equality of opportunity for all people.
(2) The functions conferred on the Authority under or by virtue of this section shall be functions of the Authority which are exercisable by the Mayor acting on behalf of the Authority.")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, during the Committee stage of the Bill I agreed to take away and consider your Lordships' comments about the need to place on the face of the Bill specific references to the authority's duties in relation to the promotion of equal opportunities. I am now moving an amendment which represents a response to the concerns raised. It also makes explicit what we believe was already implicit in the Clause 25 provisions of the Bill.
The new clause means that the may or must put in place appropriate arrangements to ensure that, in exercising the general power and in preparing and implementing his or her strategies, she or he will have to have due regard to the principle that there should be equality of opportunity for all people. The mayor is already required to consult people or organisations whose interests are affected either by the exercise of the general power or by the strategies she or he has prepared. There will therefore be many opportunities available to people to ensure that the mayor cannot fall short in fulfilling those duties in relation to the implementation of the equal opportunities provisions of the Bill or, for that matter, any other provisions of the Bill. The mayor's statutory meetings with the assembly in the people's question time will provide other public occasions during which the mayor may be held to account and progress assessed.
As we have explained throughout the passage of this Bill, we are concerned that the authority should recognise the diverse nature of the population it will
318
serve and the need for that population to be given an opportunity to have its say and to be involved in the governance of London. We believe that the provisions of the Bill deliver that opportunity and that the provisions of this amendment make our intentions absolutely explicit. I beg to move.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, perhaps I may first of all welcome the new clause introduced by the noble Baroness the Minister. She has obviously tried to give due weight to arguments advanced by all sides of your Lordships' House during the Committee stage of the Greater London Authority Bill. The proposed amendment, however, falls far short of the arguments that were advanced and which formed the basis of our contribution during that part of the Committee stage.
To explain, the Government's proposal would require the Greater London Authority to make arrangements with a view to securing a number of key areas that the Minister has just mentioned: first, the exercise of the power conferred by Clause 25 of the Bill; secondly, the formulation of policies and proposals under the strategies referred to in Clause 33(1); and, thirdly, the implementation of any of those strategies.
We have a problem here. In short, the arrangements for securing these objectives could be met by the GLA putting some arrangements in place with the intention specified in the amendment, but in reality there would be no real obligation to build equality of opportunity into the functions of the GLA. I go by my previous experience in this particular field. I shall be as helpful as I can to the Minister. I declare that at one time I worked for the Commission for Racial Equality. At present there is similarly vague wording in Section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976, which refers to making appropriate arrangements with a view to securing that various functions of the local authorities are carried out with due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful racial discrimination and promote equality of opportunity and good relations between persons of different racial groups. Note the similarity between what the Minister proposes and what is already on the statute book.
But the Commission for Racial Equality, which has carried out some major formal investigations under the race relations legislation, has concluded, and will state, that provisions of this nature have enabled some local authorities in this country to pay lip service to racial equality but to do little or nothing whatever. In reality, the discredited Section 71 and the provisions proposed by the Minister do not advance equality of opportunity any further.
We seem to have lost sight of the Macpherson Report. Only last month the Home Office published a thematic review of equality and fairness in the Fire Service—a damning report if ever there was one. Central to this major report is the extent of racism and the need to eliminate such practices. The GLA Bill already provides in Clause 338 that Section 71 of the Race Relations Act shall apply to the GLA, the Metropolitan Police Authority and the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority.

319
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, moved an amendment at Committee stage, which the Government agreed to consider and redraft, to make the promotion of equality of opportunity part of the core function of the GLA. Although the Government have acknowledged that the GLA will be subject to the existing antidiscrimination legislation, there was a strong feeling in your Lordships' House that, given the diversity of London's population, a positive duty to promote equality of opportunity should be included in the Bill. The totality of the Government's amendments adds very little to what will already be the duty of the GLA under Clause 338. Can the Minister explain the difference between Clause 338 and the new clause after Clause 27? In reality, there is none, and Clause 338 depends very much on the provisions of Section 71 of the Race Relations Act.
I take off my hat to those who drafted the new clause. It pays lip service to the promotion of equality of opportunity but adds very little to what is already in the Bill, and this simply will not do. What is also needed in the clause is specific reference to race, sex, disability, age, sexual orientation and religion. While the Government talk about
"equality of opportunity for all people",
the major advantage in specifying particular factors that must not be grounds for unequal treatment is that it makes the GLA's duty far more concrete and solid. Critically, this would provide from the outset statutory criteria that must be applied in any monitoring of compliance by the GLA of its duty to promote equality of opportunity. If the government proposals are enacted, the GLA is likely in practice to adopt monitoring on the basis of some, but not necessarily all, of the criteria I have just mentioned. It is preferable for the legislature to specify in primary legislation the specific criteria on which it expects the GLA to monitor its equality performance. Those criteria—race, sex, disability, age, sexual orientation and religion—are the same as those included in Article 13 of the European Union treaty that will ultimately be specified in European anti-discrimination legislation.
Time does not permit me to refer to the ALG briefing. Most of your Lordships will have seen what it had to say. This is a subject that I raised in Committee. Of course, we also need to revisit Clause 338.
I plead with the Minister to reconsider this provision. I shall be pleased to assist her in any way I can. If she does not, I shall certainly move appropriate amendments at Third Reading.
Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, when the amendment was considered in Committee, there was all-party support for the principle of placing a responsibility for promoting equal opportunities and tackling discrimination at the heart of the Greater London Authority. I think that is the critical issue. I have listened very carefully to the remarks which have just been made and I understand very clearly the points that are being made. I still think that this is a very
320
welcome step forward because it places clear requirements in respect of equality of opportunity on the face of the Bill. I think that we have to recognise that the nature of the work of the Greater London Authority will be tied in with its specific power conferred under Clause 25 and in terms of the preparation of policies and strategies. That is covered by this amendment.
Having said that, I do think that there should be an expectation on the mayor to report on a regular basis on the way in which this responsibility has been carried forward. Certainly in the legislation on the Welsh Assembly—I refer to the Government of Wales Act—there was a similar requirement on the Welsh Assembly to promote equality. There was also a requirement that the Assembly should publish a report after each financial year containing a statement of the arrangements made which had had effect during that financial year and—this is perhaps most important—an assessment of how effective those arrangements had been in promoting equality of opportunity. Essentially, such a system would require the new authority—if such provisions were applied in those terms to the Greater London Authority—to audit its own progress on this matter.
I listened very carefully to my noble friend the Minister's explanation that, in practice, the mayor will be accountable to the assembly and will be required to report on many matters during the course of the year. I think that is a valid point. I anticipate that assembly members will want to make sure that all such matters are addressed properly in those reports. None the less, it might be helpful to have the requirement to have an over-arching report bringing together all the different strands of policy in terms of equality of opportunity and the work which had been done.
This amendment might have been drafted in a slightly more precise way, but I am none the less extremely pleased to see it in this form. I believe that we have made considerable progress. Something is now to be written on the face of the Bill. I think that is helpful.
I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will want to take away the points which have been made in this discussion. It may well be that in the ensuing discussion and, indeed, in the debates that we shall no doubt have during the run-up to the elections for the new authority and the election of the mayor, there will be considerable emphasis on these issues and we shall find that the new mayor and the new assembly spend a great deal of time focusing on how they are going to deliver what is contained in this proposed new clause in terms of equality of opportunity for the people of London.
Let us be quite clear. Given the nature of London's population it is far more important to get this right in London than it has been in other parts of the country. I do not decry its importance in other parts of the country. However, given the nature of London's population, it will be a critical responsibility for the mayor and assembly.

321
I welcome the measure. I hope that it is a duty that is embraced enthusiastically by the mayor and all members of the assembly when elected next May to ensure that the new authority has the opportunity to make a real difference in these areas for the benefit of the people of London.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, we are not dealing with specific anti-discrimination legislation. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, in this Bill we should not go too much into the details under these circumstances. Once one strays beyond race, sex and other easily ascertainable factors, spelling things out in detail can become extremely difficult.
The advantages of the wording in the proposed amendment are that it covers many areas which would be difficult to specify such as age, financial status and other matters which might reasonably be taken into account by the mayor in ensuring that the policies he or she puts forward are of benefit to all Londoners equally, and that all Londoners have the same opportunities as far as reasonably possible. That would not be the case if we limit the provision to individual categories which are well covered by existing legislation. If they are not, the existing legislation should be amended.
I support the suggestion from the Labour Back Benches that there should be a reporting requirement. These issues are best enforced in that way. If they have to be reported on, the mayor and assembly have to pay attention to them. That ensures that the new clause is not a dead letter.
Lord Sheppard of Didgemere: My Lords, I declare, not an interest in the subject, but a passion. Like many noble Lords, I am only here because of actions by many previous generations. To that extent, I feel passionately about the subject. However, putting passion to one side, perhaps I may speak as a businessman.
The clause is mainstream good business for London. Let us take two examples. The cultural diversity of London is a major strength. At times there is great hysteria in the media and elsewhere—some justified, some not—but it is of immense strength if one is dealing with inward investment and business start-up. The huge blend of people from many different groups—they may include Italians and perhaps Scots—makes London a successful business mix. We must build on and encourage that cultural diversity.
If we are to be globally competitive, we cannot have an unskilled underclass. Apart from the fact that we might have a social revolution, we would have extremely bad economics. We cannot afford not to level up in terms of education and skills, and therefore living standards and so on. My only surprise is that the issue arises only at this stage of the Bill. I should have thought it would be the first provision drafted rather than the last.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that perhaps the
322
provision should be more precise. Equally, I agree with my noble friend Lord Lucas that it is a good thing to have a general clause.
However, I wish to ask the Minister about the wording. The Government have picked up the wording of one of the amendments brought forward previously. I have been unable to find the context in Hansard. The provision states:
"The Authority shall make appropriate arrangements with a view to securing that … there is due regard to the principle that there should be equality of opportunity for all people."
There is no such thing. My great niece is very fond of doing handstands. She has the opportunity whenever she wants, I imagine, to do a handstand in Piccadilly Circus. I do not have that opportunity because I am 74 years of age. I used to be able to do it, but not now. That is a trivial example, but there is no such thing as equality of opportunity for all people.
When we legislate it has to be capable of being tested in the courts. I picture a judge trying to decide whether something that the authority has done provides equal opportunity for all. That phrase is guff. I believe I said so at Committee stage. The noble Lord. Lord Dholakia, explained the remit of the Commission for Racial Equality. He said that it was absolutely precise. I wonder whether the Government have got it right or whether they have just taken notice of whoever moved the amendment and included the phraseology. I suspect that it will not stand up to scrutiny.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Tope: My Lords, when my noble friend Lord Dholakia began his speech he welcomed this amendment. Perhaps I may reiterate that we are pleased that the Government have recognised the concern which the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said was expressed from all Benches at a previous stage of the Bill. I believe that the Government have recognised that fact and I say so without qualification.
Quite serious concerns have been expressed tonight by my noble friend Lord Dholakia. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, did not refer to everything. He specifically used the same criteria as those contained in the EU treaty which are race, sex, disability, age, sexual orientation and religion. They are specifics laid down in the treaty, which will become incumbent upon us.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, rightly drew attention to the requirements upon the Welsh Assembly for an annual report. Others have said that that is a useful requirement. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, said rightly that the assembly members are doing the job that they are supposed to do and that they will pick up that point in any event. That applies to a great deal in this Bill.
I welcome this important step forward by the Government. I suggest that the phrase "could do better" is appropriate. I echo the offer made by my noble friend that we shall be 'very happy to discuss with Ministers and others how best the clause can be improved to meet the objectives that I believe all Members of this House share. I do not believe that there is a difference between us as to what we are trying

323
to achieve. If there is one, it is how best to achieve the objective. I believe that through discussion we shall be able to agree a number of improvements to the clause which will make it clearer, more specific and more generally acceptable.
In response I hope that the Minister will accept the offer in the spirit in which it is meant and that perhaps at Third Reading the Government will produce an amendment that can achieve the objectives to which a number of speakers have alluded tonight.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have been generous about what we have achieved. In reply I shall deal with the points of concern that have been raised. We do not believe that this amendment is a token provision. The Bill provides for a number of ways in which the mayor must report on progress. Clause 38 already requires the mayor to prepare an annual report which must include an assessment of progress in implementing the strategies, a summary of information which relates to the performance of the authority in its statutory functions and information which the assembly, prior to the beginning of the financial year to which the report relates, has asked the mayor to include. It also requires that the report be sent to the assembly and published.
Given that the mayor will be required to include in the strategies targets or bench marks which he or she has set and that all strategies specifically must now have regard to the achievement of equal opportunities, we believe that this new clause is a strong point.
I understand the issues raised by noble Lords. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, that I fear that I too would be unable to take part in handstands. However, to me, the issue of equality of opportunity relates to the fact that the country, and individuals in the country, are being denied the skills of large numbers of people. Unfortunately, that includes disproportionately large percentages of people from certain sections of the community who have the capacity to achieve an awful lot given those skills. My capacity to achieve handstands departed more years ago than I care to remember, but I look, as do other noble Lords, at the enormous pool of talent. I am aware, as are other noble Lords, that all too often the children who end up with the most difficulties in life are those who have enormous talent which is not recognised because they are not given equality of opportunity to develop that talent.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I agree with everything that the Minister says about this particular point. But I hope that she will realise that I was not suggesting that there are equal opportunities for all. I was saying that they cannot exist in the terms of the wording of the amendment. I would have thought that the wording was simply not suitable to be tested in court, unless it is already defined somewhere in a way that makes it possible to test it in court. It is simply a vague phrase that should not appear in legislation. Of course I agree with the Minister and, furthermore, I
324
think it excellent to put this clause in—of course I do. But I am questioning the wording of the part which refers to,
"due regard to the principle that there should be equality of opportunity for all people".
If someone could not stand on his head, then there would not be equality of opportunity for all people. It is just nonsense.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am sorry. Perhaps, because it is getting late, the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, and I ought to continue our duologue outside the Chamber.
My point is not that there should be an assumption that all people can achieve equal success in all fields in which other people are able to achieve high levels. That is not equality of opportunity. Equality of opportunity is absent when a child who has the potential to be a brain surgeon ends up, for a variety of reasons, not even being literate. That, when other children get through, to me is a total failure to achieve equality of opportunity. It would be difficult to take the issue further.
I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard of Didgemere, that if the population of London—indeed, of anywhere in the country, but of London in particular—does not have an opportunity to develop its talents and its cultural diversity, not only will London be the poorer for it, but so will the rest of the country. I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that there is always an opportunity for those with a responsibility to challenge and question and scrutinise and that that has not always happened. I put to him the point that this is a totally new model of governance and that the specific role for scrutiny envisaged within the Bill or the assembly will—I hope and I am sure he hopes—develop a sharper edge and sharper focus.
I appreciate the point made by my noble friend Lord Harris. We believe that the proposals now within the Bill will strengthen and put a hard force before the need to tackle the issue. No one—including Members of this House speaking for the Government at this Dispatch Box—ever claims that they have discovered every single phrase which could possibly strengthen and enhance a particular part of a particular piece of legislation. Of course we stand fully prepared to take into consideration any points raised. It is quite clear from the contributions in your Lordships' House that we have one common goal regarding this item, and that is that we get it right. We must make sure it is as effective as possible and that it delivers the conditions that must apply in this country because of European commitments. I pay tribute to the reference from the noble Lord, Lord Tope. I commend the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 17, line 5, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 72. I confess that Clause 29(1) has given me more

325
difficulty than any other provision in this Bill or, indeed, so far as I can recall, any other clause with which I have ever had to deal in any other Bill.
As drafted, the clause would enable any of the functions of the Greater London Authority to be exercisable by, in the alternative, the mayor alone or the assembly alone or the mayor and assembly jointly.
When the Bill was first published after being introduced in the other place, my initial reaction was that I did not like the provisions of this subsection because it seemed to me that we could end up with a situation where there was a lack of accountability. Each of the parties—the mayor on the one hand and the assembly on the other—could blame the other for actions they did not specifically agree or decisions in which they had not specifically participated.
It would create a huge potential for conflict if the two had different views on which policy should be pursued. It would create the potential for good old-fashioned demarcation disputes that would put the inter-union conflicts in the shipbuilding industry into the shade if the mayor on the one hand claimed that something was within his jurisdiction and the assembly on the other hand claimed it was theirs, while a disgruntled resident of Greater London might claim that a decision by either one or the other should have been made by the two bodies jointly under subsection 29(1)(c).
My response to this problem was to suggest that there should be only one choice as to who should be responsible for exercising the functions of the authority. My initial choice was that the function should be exercised by the mayor and assembly jointly; in other words, deleting subsections (a) and (b). That was the effect of Amendment No. 98 which I tabled for the Committee to consider. However, when I came to prepare my speaking notes I had a change of mind. I came to the conclusion that, as the office of the mayor was to be the executive of the authority, then logically it should be the mayor who should exercise the functions of the authority. After all, when we consider the governance of the United Kingdom, the functions of Westminster Parliament—the equivalent of the assembly—do not involve it in taking any part in the exercise of its powers by the executive in the form of the government. It grants the executive its powers and supervises the government as best it can. However, I repeat that Parliament itself does not take an active part in the exercise of the functions of the government.
Therefore, having changed my mind about who should exercise the functions of the authority, I withdrew Amendment No. 98 before it was reached and substituted Amendment 98A, which was to delete paragraphs (b) and (c), leaving the functions to be exercised by the mayor. The Government, as is their wont, rejected my amendment and in withdrawing it I said that I was sure that the Minister would not expect me to accept his explanation. I am pleased to tell the noble Lord. Lord Whitty, possibly to his great
326
surprise, that, having since carefully read his remarks, I now find that I certainly do agree with him. He said—and I streamline his remarks—that:
"The Bill provides for the majority of the authority's functions … to be exercised by the mayor … and it is right that the assembly … should exercise certain functions on behalf of the authority … There are other instances where perhaps the mayor and the assembly could jointly have responsibility".
He then concluded by saying that,
"in general there needs to be some differentiation in function—[Official Report, 21/6/99; col. 758]
It is that one phrase that contains the nub of the point. On reflection, I entirely agree with the noble Lord.
I am not one to be persuaded by rhetoric but, as an eminently reasonable person, I most certainly can be persuaded by logic. If I may tell the House of my thought processes, following the noble Lord's most logical remarks, I then asked myself the equally logical question, what is the purpose of subsection (1)? In what way does this subsection improve or explain the Bill? My answer has to be: in no way. The individual, separate and joint functions of the mayor and the assembly are clearly set out and defined throughout the Bill. So what does this subsection mean? In my opinion, and with due respect to the draftsman. I believe it is mere verbiage. It does not improve the Bill in any way. As I said a few minutes ago, what it does do is to provide fertile ground for disputes, arguments and uncertainty.
I apologise to your Lordships for raising this point at such a late stage of the Bill, and in particular at such a late hour. I should have questioned it at Second Reading, or I should have introduced a probing amendment in Committee. However, I was so engrossed in adopting a minimalist approach to the amendment that although I realised that there was something drastically wrong with the clause, I did not appreciate that it really was beyond amendment and that the only solution to its basic flaw would be to excise it altogether. I have tried to make up for this by giving the Minister advance notice of my opinion and argument. I look forward with interest to his reply.
I turn now to the minor drafting amendment, Amendment No. 72. It calls for two words, "in particular", to be deleted from subsection (10), which reads:
"This section is subject, in particular, to Part II of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994".
But why "in particular"? This section, and this entire Bill, and indeed every Act of Parliament, is subject to every other part of the law of the land, whether or not mentioned, unless specifically excepted. I can understand that the Government wish to adhere to this Act by an appropriate declaration, but why "in particular"? It is an unnecessary and indeed most odd phrase to use in legislation. Again, it could provide fertile ground for a future nitpicker to suggest that this Act is not "in particular" subject to some equally relevant law.
Just as subsection (1) is not relevant, I believe that the two words "in particular" are mere tautology. I hope the Government will agree to their deletion to prevent any future problems. I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not understand, or at least I did not understand until three or four minutes ago, what the noble Baroness was trying to do in moving to delete subsection (1) of Clause 29. The clause provides that all powers under this Act are exercisable by the mayor, the assembly or a combination of the mayor and the assembly as specified under those particular powers. That clarifies the position that there are no powers under this Act that fall outside one of those three areas.
The individual powers are based on the separation of powers which we have described at great length during the course of the Bill. It makes clear that the mayor will play the role of an executive decision maker, and the assembly will provide scrutiny of the mayor's actions. The clause makes it clear that all powers contained in the Bill will be exercisable by either subsections (1)(a), (b) or (c), and not in any other way. Other clauses therefore develop from that point.
If we were to remove the clause, it would open the way for those future nitpickers referred to by the noble Baroness to put forward the possibility that not all actions of the authority are exercisable in this way. They could be exercised in an entirely different way. We therefore need this clause as a safety net, and I resist its removal.
The noble Baroness is correct in stating that in relation to Amendment No.72 any relevant legislation will apply to the provisions of the GLA Bill. Clause 29(1) simply draws attention to Part II of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, which is particularly significant. Deletion of the words "in particular" would probably have the opposite effect to the one intended by the noble Baroness because it would suggest that it was only subject to Part II of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act and not to other legislation. Whether that provision in itself can alter the basic, fundamental position that all Acts are subject to other relevant legislation unless specifically prescribed, I am not sure, but it would confuse the issue. That Act is singled out because it is particularly significant in these circumstances. It could be argued that the deletion of "in particular" suggests that other Acts that are relevant to carrying out powers under this Act would not apply. It is therefore better to leave those words there, although, as the noble Baroness stated, it does not alter either way the general position that all other legislation, unless specified in this Act, shall apply. I hope that the noble Baroness will not pursue the matter.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I accept what the Minister has said about Amendment No.72, that it is not necessary to delete it; neither is it unnecessary. Nevertheless, I shall accept what he says because it is late.
I have no intention of pressing Amendment No. 71 at this late hour, and I do not think that I shall bring it back at Third Reading, but I should like it to be on the record that I think it is a confusing provision. It
328
certainly confused me. It may very well lead to problems later on, and I think it would have been much simpler to have removed it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 72 not moved.]
Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 73:
After Clause 29, insert the following new clause—
STANDING ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITY
(" .—(1) The Assembly, in consultation with the Mayor, may make standing orders of the Authority.
(2) The procedure of the Assembly, and of any committees or sub-committees of the Assembly, shall be regulated by the standing orders of the Authority.
(3) Standing orders of the Authority may make provision regulating the procedure to be followed—

(a) by any member of the Assembly, or

(b) by any member of staff of the Authority,

by whom functions of the Authority are exercisable pursuant to arrangements under section 46 below.
(4) Standing orders of the Authority may make provision regulating the procedure to be followed by the Mayor or by the Assembly in discharging any functions of the Mayor or the Assembly. to the extent that the functions—

(a) consist of consultation or any other interaction or relationship between the Mayor and the Assembly: or

(b) are exercisable by the Mayor in relation to the Assembly or by the Assembly in relation to the Mayor.

(5) Standing orders of the Authority may make provision for any other matter for which provision by standing orders of the Authority is authorised or required by or under any other provision of this Act or any other enactment.
(6) Subsections (2) to (5) above are subject to any other provision of this Act or any other enactment which regulates, or provides for the regulation of, the procedure of the Assembly or any procedure to be followed by the Mayor.
(7) Standing orders of the Authority may make different provision for different circumstances.
(8) The Assembly, after consultation with the Mayor, may at any time vary or revoke any standing orders of the Authority.
(9) Neither section 31 below nor section 46 below shall apply in relation to the functions of the Mayor or the Assembly under this section.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this clause is to provide for the assembly to make standing orders of the authority, following consultation with the mayor, and in so doing to limit the extent to which the assembly can make standing orders in relation to the mayor. Subsection (4) relates in particular to procedures for consultation or any other interaction or relationship between the mayor and the assembly; for example, statutory meetings.
This provision is intended to ensure that the assembly's standing orders do not prescribe the actions of the mayor more generally outside the interface between the mayor and the assembly. It is a useful clarification. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, both this new clause and Clause 45 provide that they are subject to other provisions of the Act. On first reading, it seems that neither is paramount. Can the Minister confirm that Clause 29(2), which states that the procedure of the assembly and committees shall be regulated by

329
standing orders of the authority, means that the standing orders take preference over procedure, notwithstanding what is provided later in the clause?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am particularly interested in subsection (4) which states that the authority may make provision regulating the procedure to be followed by the mayor. Presumably, this function will be exercised by the assembly.
Let us suppose that the mayor and the assembly were from different parties, which is not unlikely. The mayor could be required to approach the assembly on his knees, or wearing a gold lame jockstrap or whatever else might amuse, or there could be other procedures more subtly intended to humiliate the mayor in the presence of the assembly. That would seem to be an odd arrangement of powers. I am sure that the mayor should have an interest in the procedures to be followed by the assembly concerning its relationship with him.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as regards the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, the mayor does have such an interest. It is built into subsection (1) of the new clause, which reads:
"The Assembly, in consultation with the Mayor, may make standing orders of the Authority".
I suspect that any such consultation would make it clear that the mayor was not likely to be well disposed towards the kind of situation described by the noble Lord. That point is, therefore, covered.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred to other procedures and precedents. The procedure to be adopted will clearly be subject to what is required under the Act. In other words, the standing orders relate to the responsibilities and functions of the various parts of the authority in other parts of the Act. They are therefore procedural and not substantive in that sense.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Exercise of functions during vacancy or temporary incapacity of Mayor]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 219, line 5, leave out ("to the Deputy Mayor") and insert—

("(a) to the Deputy Mayor, if there is a holder of that office: or

(b) in any other case. to the Chair of the Assembly.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to the other amendments in this group, all of which relate to the question of a vacancy in the office of the mayor and, in particular, to where it may not be the case that the deputy mayor will, in all circumstances, take on the role of the mayor until that vacancy is filled.
The deputy mayor may be either unable or unwilling to take on those responsibilities. In those circumstances, the chair of the assembly would be invited to take on the duties of the mayor and to act as mayor. We believe, therefore, that there should be a formal office of acting mayor to which either the
330
deputy mayor, in normal circumstances, or, in other circumstances, the chair of the assembly, may be appointed where necessary. Amendment No. 74 creates that office.
Amendment No. 76 provides the procedures for filling the office of acting mayor. Under those provisions, the deputy mayor becomes acting mayor unless he or she is unwilling to accept office. If the deputy mayor does not become acting mayor, the appropriate office notifies the chair of the assembly that he or she will become acting mayor.
The amendment also provides that if the deputy mayor or the chair of the assembly becomes acting mayor, he or she cannot be deputy mayor, chair, or deputy chair of the assembly.
The acting mayor will be subject to the provisions of Schedule 4, Part II(4), which sets out the functions not exercisable by the deputy mayor. Amendment No. 81 provides that the acting mayor may not act as an assembly member other than in relation to the budget.
Amendment No. 92 provides for similar procedures where a vacancy occurs in the office of acting mayor. Amendments Nos. 93 to 9:5 which are virtually at the end of this group, provide for the chair to be treated as mayor when the mayor is temporarily unable to act. The other later amendments in the group are consequential on the principal amendments. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Elton): My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord would put on the record the amendments in the group to which he spoke, not all of which he has mentioned.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 74, I spoke also to Amendments Nos. 75 to 95. Then there are Amendments Nos. 172, 177, 179 and 182.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, as I have told the noble Lord, I intend to speak to Amendments Nos. 93, 94 and 95 separately. On consideration, I shall add No. 92 to those, in order to keep the subjects separate. On Amendments Nos. 74 to 91, I have no point of major importance to make, but I should like to ask the noble Lord about one subtlety of drafting.
Amendment No. 83 inserts the words "unless and", followed by "until". Amendment No. 90 makes it "unless or until". Can the noble Lord explain to me the difference between those two phrases and why they should be different in those two positions? Perhaps he can also explain the necessity for reinforcing the word "until" with "unless" in the first place.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, if I may, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 76 and ask the noble Lord for his help. I find it difficult to reconcile the proposed paragraph 2B(1) in the amendment with paragraph 5(1). There it says that the deputy mayor may not exercise the functions of

331
the acting mayor until he has delivered a declaration of acceptance. Yet by paragraph 2B(1) the deputy mayor is the acting mayor immediately, though the status is lost if he does not deliver a declaration of acceptance within seven days. I refer to paragraph 2B(1)(b) and 2B(6). But as soon as the deputy mayor becomes the acting mayor he ceases to become the deputy mayor under paragraph 2B(2). Therefore how can paragraph 5(1) in the Bill actually apply? I have to say that I find that a complete and utter muddle. I should be most grateful if the noble Lord could help me on that. To me, paragraph 2B(1)(b) is barely comprehensible. It says that if the deputy mayor does not give a notice under paragraph (a) above "and". I think that is quite unnecessary and ought to go, because as soon as a notice is given under (a) the whole thing is triggered. I find that inelegant drafting and I cannot understand it.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there are complicated interrelationships between the various clauses. On the noble Baroness's last point, you need to provide for the situation where there is a formal declaration that the person does not wish to be acting mayor and also for the situation where the person does not deliver a declaration under paragraph 5(1). One is a passive and the other an active denial, so to speak, of taking on the office.
Regarding the earlier cross-references between what is on the face of the Bill and paragraph 5(1), I am not immediately in a position to give a clear answer. I hope that the noble Baroness will allow me to write to her. If necessary, we can return to the matter at Third Reading.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, gave me notice that he wishes to raise questions on Amendment No. 93, and so on. Perhaps he can remind me which of the amendments he wishes to discuss in this first group.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I shall get difficult when we reach Amendment No. 92. However, there are also Amendments Nos. 83 and 90—the use of "unless and" in the former and "unless or" in the latter; and, indeed, the reason why the word "until" in Amendment No. 83 needs reinforcing. I wish to know what additional circumstances are covered by the words "unless and". I am quite happy for the noble Lord to write to me on the matter, but I would like to know the answer.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Lord will probably get a more accurate response in that case. If the noble Lord will bear with me, I shall write to him.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 75 to 91:
Page 219, line 8, at end insert—
("Provision for acting Mayor during vacancy
2A. During any vacancy in the office of Mayor there shall be an acting Mayor of London (in this Act referred to as the "acting Mayor").")
Page 219, line 8, at end insert—
("Filling the office of acting Mayor
2B.—(1) If a person holds the office of Deputy Mayor on the date on which a vacancy in the office of Mayor occurs, that person shall be the acting Mayor unless, within the permitted period—

(a) he gives notice to the proper officer of the Authority that he does not wish to be the acting Mayor; or

(b) he does not give a notice under paragraph (a) above and does not deliver a declaration under paragraph 5(1) below.

(2) If a person becomes the acting Mayor by virtue of being the Deputy Mayor—

(a) he shall cease to be the Deputy Mayor: and

(b) he shall not be the Deputy Mayor, the Chair of the Assembly or the Deputy Chair of the Assembly at any time while he is the acting Mayor.

(3) If, by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) above, the person who is the Deputy Mayor does not become the acting Mayor, the proper officer of the Authority shall give notice of that fact to the Chair of the Assembly as soon as practicable after—

(a) receipt of any notice under sub-paragraph (1)(a) above; or

(b) if no such notice is given, the last day of the permitted period.

(4) Where notice is given to the Chair of the Assembly—

(a) under paragraph 2(1)(b) above, or

(b) under sub-paragraph (3) above,

the person who is the Chair of the Assembly shall be the acting Mayor.
(5) If a person becomes acting Mayor by virtue of being the Chair of the Assembly—

(a) he shall cease to be the Chair of the Assembly; and

(b) he shall not be the Deputy Mayor, the Chair of the Assembly or the Deputy Chair of the Assembly at any time while he is the acting Mayor.

(6) In this paragraph "the permitted period" means the period of seven days following the day on which notice under paragraph 2(1)(a) above is given to the Deputy Mayor.")
Page 219, leave out lines 9 and 10 and insert —
("Acting Mayor to be treated as Mayor during vacancy
3.—(1) If and so long as there is an acting Mayor—")
Page 219, line 12, leave out ("Deputy") and insert ("acting")
Page 219, line 14, leave out ("Deputy") and insert ("acting")
Page 219, line 16, leave out ("Deputy") and insert ("acting")
Page 219, line 31, at end insert—
("Acting Mayor not to act as Assembly member except in relation to budget
4A.—(1) While a person is the acting Mayor, he shall not act as an Assembly member except in relation to the functions of the Assembly under Schedule 5 or 6 to this Act.
(2) Any period during which sub-paragraph (1) above has effect in relation to a person shall be left out of account in applying section 6 of this Act in relation to that person.")
Page 219, line 33, leave out ("The Deputy Mayor shall not") and insert ("A person shall not, by virtue of being Deputy Mayor,

(a) become the acting Mayor, or

(b)")

Page 219, line 34, after ("above") insert ("unless and")
Page 219, line 35, after ("Authority") insert ("within the permitted period")
Page 219, line 36, at end insert—
("( ) In sub-paragraph (1) above, "permitted period" has the same meaning as in paragraph 2B above.")
Page 219, line 40, leave out ("Deputy") and insert ("acting")
Page 219, line 43, leave out ("Deputy") and insert ("acting")
Page 219, line 47, leave out ("Deputy") and insert ("acting")
Page 220, line 1. leave out sub-paragraphs (3) and (4)
Page 220, line 6, at end insert—
("Declaration of acceptance by Chair of Assembly
6A. A person who becomes acting Mayor by virtue of being the Chair of the Assembly shall not act in the office of acting Mayor unless or until he has satisfied in respect of his office as an Assembly member the requirements of section 23(1) above.")
Page 220, line 7, leave out paragraph 7
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 220, line 15, al end insert—
('Occurrence of vacancy in office of acting Mayor
8A. —(1) If, at any time during a vacancy in the office of Mayor, a casual vacancy occurs in the office of acting Mayor, the head of the Authority's paid service shall give notice of the vacancy —

(a) to the Chair of the Assembly, and

(b) to the Deputy Mayor, if there is a holder of that office,

and this Part of this Schedule (other than paragraph 2 above) shall have effect as if a vacancy in the office of Mayor had arisen on the date on which the vacancy in the office of acting Mayor occurs.
(2) For the purposes of this paragraph, the cases in which, and the date on which, a casual vacancy occurs in the office of acting Mayor are the cases in which, and the date on which, a casual vacancy—

(a) occurs in the acting Mayor's office as an Assembly member; or

(b) would have occurred in the office of Mayor, had the acting Mayor been the Mayor.

(3) Any notice under sub-paragraph (1) above shall be given as soon as practicable after the date on which, by virtue of su-bparagraph (2) above, the vacancy is, in accordance with section 9 or 15 of this Act, to be regarded as occurring.")
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I should very much like some clarification of paragraph (2) of the amendment, which sets out the date on which the casual vacancy occurs in the office of acting mayor and offers two alternatives—the date on which the casual vacancy occurs in the acting mayor's office as an assembly member, or would have occurred in the office of the mayor had the acting mayor been the mayor. I should be very grateful to have the Minister's confirmation that there is no possibility of conflict between those alternatives and that there is no possibility of that duality generating two different dates because of concatenation of events which resulted in both a vacancy in the position of the assembly member and a vacancy in the position of mayor. I shall be fascinated to know the function of paragraph (2)(a); in other words, what vacancies might occur in the acting mayor's position as an assembly member which would not, at the same time, trigger a vacancy in the office of mayor if he had been mayor?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in relation to the noble Lord's first point, I should point out that it is not at all clear that there is a position where the two dates would lead one to a different answer. As regards his second point, if the previous deputy mayor has not become acting mayor there is a difference between paragraphs (a) and (b). That is why we require the distinction.
334
That leads me to my first conclusion; namely, that there would not be a different date. However, it may be necessary to look at all the contingencies covered by the clause. If that is the case, I had better, once again, agree to write to the noble Lord.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 220, line 17, at end insert—
("Notice of Mayor's temporary inability to act
8B.—(1) If the head of the Authority's paid service becomes aware that the Mayor is temporarily unable to act, he shall as soon as reasonably practicable give notice of that fact—

(a) to the Chair of the Assembly; and

(b) to the Deputy Mayor, if there is a holder of that office.

(2) For the purposes of the following provisions of this Part of this Schedule, any period when the Mayor is temporarily unable to act shall be taken to begin with the giving of the notice required by sub-paragraph (1) above.")
Lord Lucas: My Lords, here we come to a subject of much high drama and great fiction—the Mutiny on the Bounty no less, passages in "Hornblower" and other great sea-going stories; in other words, when does the captain become sufficiently doolally that he should be replaced by his senior officers? As I remember it, in those cases the arbiter was the ship's doctor. It was a very tricky position for him because a court martial awaited automatically at the other end to discover whether he had been right. If he had got it wrong, that was the end of him.
"If somebody else becomes aware that the mayor is unable to act"—that is a very undefined position. How would it have been defined, for instance, in the case of President Reagan or Boris Yeltsin; or in the case of any other leader people might say was getting to the point when his ability to act was questionable? There have certainly been stages where Boris Yeltsin has been unable to act and he has handed over power, temporarily, to other people while he has been in hospital undergoing operations.
It seems very odd that the power should not be exercised in consultation with the mayor and that the burden of making such a lonely and difficult decision should be placed on someone without the support of some democratic procedure to ensure that the decision is taken properly. I would appreciate the Minister's comments on how this particular formula has been arrived at and whether it has any precedent in any elected office of any other authority in this country.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the intention is to avoid he situation where it is part of the political process that someone reaches that conclusion. I suspect that in many political circumstances there have been occasions when your colleagues might decide that you are incapable of acting.
Noble Lords: Never!
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I was not referring to anyone who is in the Chamber at the moment. One can

335
think of geographically less distant situations than those referred to by the noble Lord where at least a query about an ability to continue to act might have been raised by one's colleagues. It is therefore important that it should not be the assembly—or, if you like, the politicians—who make that judgment; it should be taken by the senior professional within the authority. It is a judgment he would take in consultation with the mayor, if the mayor is capable of making a rational judgment—it is a chicken and egg situation—and, if necessary, with medical authorities if it concerns a medical condition. The amendment seeks to clarify who takes the decision in such a situation and to remove the decision from the political arena.
I am getting into deep water here. To leave a decision as to the mayor's health or sanity to an assembly or political vote could be very dangerous. Therefore it will be the senior professional in the authority who makes that judgment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 220, line 31, leave out from ("under") to end of line 32 and insert ("Schedule 5 or 6 to this Act;")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 94.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I would be very grateful if the Minister could explain what this amendment achieves and why it is necessary.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, Amendment No. 94 clarifies and further specifies that the deputy mayor, acting in place of the mayor in case of a temporary vacancy, is not allowed to act in relation to the budget. That is the main point of the amendment: it prevents the deputy mayor from determining the authority's budget in accordance with Schedules 5 and 6. It mirrors the provision which restricts the acting mayor from doing the same under Part II of Schedule 4 to the Bill. That is why the reference is to Schedules 5 and 6.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
11 p.m.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 221, line 10, leave out paragraph 13 and insert—
("13.—(1) This paragraph applies in relation to any period (or, as the case may be, the remainder of any period) when the Mayor is temporarily unable to act, if

(a) at the beginning of that period there is no Deputy Mayor; or

(b) the person who, at the beginning of that period, is the Deputy Mayor gives notice to the proper officer of the Authority, within the permitted time, that he does not wish to exercise the functions of the Mayor pursuant to paragraph 9 above; or

(c) a casual vacancy occurs in the office of Deputy Mayor during that period;

and in paragraph (b) above "the permitted time" means the period of seven days following the day on which notice under paragraph 8B(1)(b) above is given to the Deputy Mayor.
336
(2) Where this paragraph applies—

(a) paragraphs 9 and 10 above shall have effect with the substitution for references to the Deputy Mayor of references to the Chair of the Assembly; and

(b) paragraph 12 above shall be disregarded, but without prejudice to any action taken under paragraph (a) or (b), or required to be taken under paragraph (b), of that paragraph.

(3) If and so long as functions are exercisable by virtue of paragraph 9 above by the Chair of the Assembly, he shall not exercise any of the other functions of Chair of the Assembly.
(4) If and so long as the Chair of the Assembly is precluded by sub-paragraph (3) above from exercising any of his functions, those functions shall be exercisable instead by the Deputy Chair of the Assembly.
(5) If and so long as any functions of the Chair of the Assembly are, by virtue of sub-paragraph (4) above, exercisable by the Deputy Chair of the Assembly, the Deputy Chair of the Assembly shall not exercise any of his other functions.
(6) If and so long as the Deputy Chair of the Assembly is precluded by sub-paragraph (5) above from exercising any of his functions, those functions shall be exercisable instead by a person ("the acting Deputy Chair") elected for the purpose at a meeting of the Assembly from among the Assembly members.
(7) A person must not at the same time hold office as acting Deputy Chair and as Mayor, Deputy Mayor, Chair of the Assembly or Deputy Chair of the Assembly.
(8) If the acting Deputy Chair becomes Mayor, Deputy Mayor, Chair of the Assembly or Deputy Chair of the Assembly, a vacancy shall occur in the office of acting Deputy Chair.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I have a couple of questions. First, could the noble Lord elucidate the meaning of sub-paragraph (2)(b)? I am afraid that, after a fair amount of study, it still eludes me and I should be grateful for the noble Lord's help. Secondly, I am interested in the contrast between the provision in subparagraph (3) and the provision in Amendment No. 81, where budget provisions are excepted. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could tell me why the provisions in this case are different.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, on the first question, the whole point of the amendment is to set out arrangements when the mayor's office is vacant and, perhaps for entirely different reasons, the deputy mayor's office is vacant—that is, the deputy mayor has resigned or, for other reasons, there is no deputy mayor in place. If there is no deputy mayor in place when the mayor becomes temporarily incapacitated or unable to act, the provision in sub-paragraph (2)(a) applies.
I was not entirely clear in regard to the noble Lord's reference to the previous amendment and the cross-reference to the budget provisions in this proposal. Perhaps I may write to him on that aspect.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 31 [Delegation]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 18, line 15, at end insert—
("( ) the Common Council;")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 97 to 102.
In these amendments we seek to meet concerns expressed at earlier stages of the Bill about the need for the clarification of the mayor's powers to delegate his or her functions.
Amendment No. 96 is straightforward. It simply adds the Common Council of the City of London to the bodies to which the mayor may delegate functions. I regret to say that its omission was an oversight.
In the light of concerns expressed in Committee, Amendment No. 97 makes explicit on the face of the Bill what we had previously thought was implicit; namely, that the mayor, when delegating functions to a local authority or the Common Council, may do so only with the written consent of that authority. It also makes clear that any authority which makes such an agreement may withdraw from it when it chooses to do so.
Amendment No. 98 provides that the mayor may apply conditions to any delegation he or she makes to an authority, and that those conditions would also apply to any committees, sub-committees or people to whom the authority in turn sub-delegates those functions.
Amendment No. 99 adds the Common Council and any local authority to the list of bodies which can exercise functions on behalf of the authority, whether or not they would already have the power to do so were it not for the provision in this subsection.
Amendment No. 100 extends to Transport for London and the LDA the delegation provisions of Section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972. These permit delegation to committees and sub-committees.
Amendment No. 101 deletes the current provisions on joint committees—which adopt the provisions of the Local Government Act. They are replaced by the specific provisions for joint committees between the GLA and one or more local authorities which are set out in Amendment No. 102. This will allow them to form joint committees where their functions are either the same or, where they are different, they have related or connected interests. Again, that reflects some of the concerns expressed earlier in terms of the working between the GLA. and the boroughs and other authorities.
The purpose of this group of amendments is practical. They are intended to assist the authority in the conduct of its business and its relationships with other authorities. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I have a simple question to ask the Minister on Amendment No. 102. In subsection (7), what do the words "Subject to that" mean? Should those words be amended to make more sense?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I shall clarify the matter if that is not the case, but, as I read the provision, it is subject to subsection (6). However, the noble Baroness may have a point. It relates to persons disqualified under subsection (6). Subject to that, the mayors may appoint virtually whomever they like, under subsection (7) Perhaps it could be clearer.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 97 to 102:
Page 18, line 16, at end insert—
("(2A) In the case of the Common Council or a local authority, an authorisation under this section—

(a) may only be granted or varied with its written consent; and

(b) shall cease to have effect if notice of the withdrawal of that consent is given to the Mayor.")

Page 18, line 16, at end insert—
("(2B) Where, by virtue of an authorisation under subsection (1) above, a duty is exercisable by any of the bodies or persons specified in subsection (2) above, that body or person shall discharge the duty in accordance with the authorisation and any conditions imposed by the Mayor under subsection (1) above.
(2C) Subsection (2B) above is without prejudice to the exercise by the body or person concerned of any power to arrange for the discharge of functions by—

(a) a committee or sub-committee, or a member. officer or employee, of the body or person, or

(b) a joint committee on which the body or person is represented,

except to the extent that the terms of the authorisation or any conditions imposed by the Mayor under subsection (1) above otherwise provide.")
Page 18, line 24, at end insert—

("(c) the Common Council,

(d) any local authority,")

Page 18, line 31, leave out from ("authorisation") to ("as") in line 32 and insert ("under subsection (1) above given by the Mayor—

(a) to a local authority,

(b) to Transport for London, or

(c) to the London Development Agency,")

Page 18, line 34, leave out subsection (6)
After Clause 31, insert the following new clause—
EXERCISE OF FUNCTIONS BY JOINT COMMITTEES
(" .—(1) Where any functions exercisable on behalf of the Authority by the Mayor are, by virtue of an authorisation under section 31(1) above, also exercisable by one or more local authorities, the Mayor and those authorities may enter into arrangements under section 101(5) of the Local Government Act 1972 for the joint discharge of the functions by a joint committee.
(2) Where—

(a) a statutory function of the Authority is exercisable, or has been exercised, by the Mayor acting on behalf of the Authority, and

(b) the exercise, or any particular exercise, of that function will or may affect, or be affected by, the exercise, or any particular exercise, of statutory functions of local authorities (whether or not the functions are the same in the case of each such authority),

the Mayor and those authorities may enter into arrangements under section 101(5) of the Local Government Act 1972 for the joint exercise of any of the statutory functions mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) above by a joint committee, as if those functions were exercisable by the Mayor acting on behalf of the Authority and by each local authority.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2) above, the exercise of a function shall be taken to affect, or be affected by. the exercise of another function if the functions are exercisable for the same, or for similar or connected, purposes or in relation to the same, or similar or connected, subject matter.
(4) For the purposes of subsections (1) and (2) above, sections 101(5) and 102 to 106 of the Local Government Act 1972 shall have effect as if the Authority acting by the Mayor were a local authority.
(5) Any arrangements made by virtue of subsection (1) or (2) above for the discharge of any functions by a joint committee (or by a sub-committee of a joint committee) shall not prevent the Mayor or any local authority, or the joint committee by whom the arrangements are made, from exercising the functions.
(6) A person who is disqualified under section 20 above from being elected or being the Mayor or an Assembly member. otherwise than by reason only of being a member of staff of the Authority, shall be disqualified from being a member of a joint committee established by virtue of subsection (1) or (2) above or of any sub-committee of such a committee.
(7) Subject to that, the Mayor or any other individual may be appointed as a representative of the Authority on any joint committee established by virtue of subsection (1) above and any such representative may be appointed as a member of any subcommittee of such a joint committee.
(8) Any reference in this section to a local authority includes a reference to the Common Council.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 97 to 102 en bloc. They are subject to my comments on Amendment No. 96.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 33 [General duties of the Mayor in relation to his strategies]:
Lord Luke Lord Luke moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 19, line 25, at end insert—
("( ) the River Thames Strategy prepared and published under section (River Thames Strategy) below,")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 544, which is consequential.
The river Thames, for some extraordinary reason, usually gets left out or at best a cursory mention in discussions about London. This is all the more strange in that the Thames is why London is where it is, and what it is, and it is the fount of London's prosperity and fame. Tourism is now of great economic importance to London and yet only a fraction of tourists visiting London do so with the prime object of taking a trip on the Thames. Both the London Tourist Board and the British Tourist Authority are rightly most concerned about this and are constantly looking at ways of encouraging tourists to go on the Thames.
As the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said in his Amendment No. 451 at Committee stage, the advent of the mayor is a golden opportunity to combine and co-ordinate the affairs of the Port of London Authority, the riparian authorities and other interested bodies, to the benefit of all those participating and, I add, the cause of tourism on the Thames.
What is the present state of affairs? I am grateful to the London Tourist Board for up-to-date information. There is, of course, the Greenwich Dome, the catalyst for much new activity on the Thames. There is the new ocean terminal which I hope will come to Deptford Creek. There are other significant new riverside developments at Woolwich and Greenwich. All those should lead to more Thameside attractions for
340
tourists. River services are being significantly boosted for the millennium. Thames 2000 is the umbrella name for them and the cross-river partnership is the coordinating factor.
City Cruises are providing four new boats to run services from central London to the Greenwich peninsula. They will go from one of the new piers just by the London Eye, via Blackfriars to the dome. A new shuttle service is already running from central London as far as Canary Wharf and will continue after the Experience is over. A shuttle service will run from Old Greenwich to the dome. Several new and refurbished piers are coming into operation as part of Thames 2000. There is also the new pedestrian bridge at Bankside and the new pedestrian bridges attached to Hungerford Bridge.
All the projects are most welcome and worth while, but we are worried by the advent of the new authority made responsible for licensing the use of piers and river operators. This is London River Services, a subsidiary of London Transport. They seem to be embarking on a policy of providing services for transport as distinct from being angled towards tourism. They could even insist, I am told, that boat operators adopt uniform fares. This is not good for competition and is causing consternation among operators. I submit that the new mayor will be splendidly placed to help resolve this and other, similar kinds of problems.
Tourism, though at present modest in its scope, is vital to the well-being of the river and therefore of London itself. All possible means should be used to encourage it. The mayor will see the Thames from his new office, if he uses it. If not, he should go up the Eye and count the vessels using the Thames on an average day.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment No. 104 as a paving amendment and also to Amendment Nos. 554 and 555.
We had the opportunity of visiting this issue when we were debating the matter at Committee stage. I therefore do not need to rehearse all the arguments at any length. I do believe, however, that it is very important for the Bill to be able to set out the nature of a strategy for utilising the River Thames much more effectively than has been the case in the past.
The amendment deals with a wide variety of policies to give effect to the strategy; it deals with transport and spatial development, biodiversity, municipal waste, air quality, ambient noise and cultural activities. I certainly do not propose to go into those matters at this time of the night. It is very important, however, that this great jewel in the crown of London, with its historic past, should have a major role in future so that it can be used for this wide spectrum of policies. These need to be mobilised in a coherent way, since all the areas and activities identified are in a sense interdependent. They clearly require a public transport service, and the amendments address transport, freight and also water.
Why should we separate the approach from that referred to elsewhere in the Bill in defining the duties of a mayor? The Government have argued previously

341
that the new clause, or something like it, is not necessary. It will he for the mayor, they say, to deal with issues relating to waste, transport, biodiversity and public access, all as part and parcel of his strategies to promote the use of the river.
I have felt. and this is a matter of judgment of course, that the Bill does not comprehensively and conclusively deal with all these matters in satisfactory detail. The River Thames Association has indicated that it concurs with that view.
It is perfectly true that there are discretionary powers relating to the "desirability" of promoting the river, especially in its transport role: but what about enhancing the civic and cultural matters which are associated with the river? These are intrinsically involved with using the river as a resource for public amenity, enhancing its civic and cultural attributes.
What it comes to is requiring the mayor, through a statutory duty, to follow a strategy to promote social development. Is such a separate strategy desirable? I would argue very strongly that it is. Co-ordination goes to the heart of all that has been set out in this amendment, and I am not wholly reassured by the arguments produced by my noble friend at the Committee stage.
Bearing in mind the significance of this river and everything that it stands for and does not only to London but the whole country, it is important that there should be a framework within which the mayor will work for the benefit of London and the country as a whole. That is an integral part of our national policies to which the Thames is so vital.
The amendment also provides that there should be the fullest consultation. That is set out in subsections (5) and (6) of Amendment No. 554. That is also an important ingredient of the mayor's duties. Although I do not intend to expand on that matter, I should like to know whether in the past few weeks my noble friend has been able to reflect on the validity of the argument, bearing in mind the significance of the matter, that a particular framework should be provided within which the mayor can work so that he is able, together with the authority, to exercise proper discretion.
11.15 p.m.
Earl Bathurst: My Lords, I ask both noble Lords who have tabled the amendment and the next one—perhaps the Minister is able to confirm it—whether the River Thames strategy also involves safety. One thinks about safety particularly at this moment. One also casts one's mind back to the tragedy of the "Marchioness" disaster some time ago. I cannot see any reference to safety in the Bill, but perhaps it is there. If so, can the Minister confirm that the River Thames strategy is concerned with safety? It may be that both noble Lords who have tabled these amendments can also confirm the position.
Lord Whitty: Nily Lords, the Government understand and sympathise with the sentiment behind the amendment. As all noble Lords have said, the River Thames is an important component of London's
342
identity. It has a number of diverse roles that need to be handled sensitively and in a strategic manner. However, as I indicated in Committee, we have given further thought to this matter. We still believe that the Bill already gives the mayor the powers that he or she needs to reflect the strategic importance of London's river through the spatial development strategy and other strategies. We do not consider that to require a free-standing, separate strategy for the Thames is the best way to achieve the objective that the noble Lord has set out.
The Government currently set the strategic framework for planning policy in London through regional planning guidance. A dedicated annex sets out strategic policies for the River Thames. It may well be that the mayor will want to incorporate the Government's current policies on the Thames, which are widely supported, wholesale into the spatial development strategy. But we believe that that should be a decision for the mayor, and that it is not one that we should place on the face of the Bill. To retain strategic policy for the Thames within the ambit of the SDS confers very positive advantages; in particular, it will ensure that it has added teeth.
The boroughs' unitary development plans will also have to be in general conformity with the spatial development strategy and the mayor will be responsible for monitoring; that. The effect or putting policies for the Thames into a separate strategy as the noble Lord proposes is to take them out of those arrangements and may result in the Thames having less protection than it has at present. Noble Lords will be aware that Clause 33 already provides that the mayor must consider in all the strategies the desirability of promoting and encouraging the use of the River Thames.
I hope that I have at least reassured noble Lords that we recognise the importance of the Thames to London and that we have provided the mayor with powers in the Bill to preserve and enhance its role. Having highlighted the concerns about having a separate, freestanding Thames strategy, hope that the noble Lord will recognise that those concerns are central both to the SDS and other strategies.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I do not know whether my noble friend is about to sit down.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not, but I shall sit down.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, we are all in eager anticipation of sitting down. That is totally untrue: we want to go on for ever.
Perhaps I may put a question to my noble friend. If the strategy adopted by the mayor and authority was in conflict with the wider aims of the Government in relation to the river and everything that it offers, including its access to the sea, would the Government have no status in that argument? Would it be solely a matter for the mayor of London to devise, as prescribed in the Bill? Surely there are transport issues

343
here which could be of great national import. How would that be given effect to by the Bill as presently constructed?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the strategies of a mayor all have to be in broad conformity with national policy and the Secretary of State would have some reserve powers were the mayor attempting—a slightly unlikely situation—to close the Port of London to international shipping. I am not quite sure of the conflict my noble friend envisaged but there is provision within the Bill for conformity between all strategies, including in particular the development strategy, and broad national strategies, and that would apply to transport as well.
The Thames features in many of those strategies, in particular, in the spatial development strategy, and would best be linked with all the broader policy objectives, both London-wide and nationally, rather than being dealt with on its own.
Safety on the river, covered by both the intervention by the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, and also Amendment No. 108, is a matter we must take very seriously. Noble Lords will know that an inquiry now being carried out by Lord Justice Clarke into safety on the Thames will review the current position, particularly in the context of potential additional use of the Thames during the millennium year celebrations and indeed will consider early issues arising from the tragedy of the "Marchioness". I cannot at this stage prejudge the conclusions that the inquiry may reach but we are committed to ensuring that safety procedures on the river are adequate for responding to emergencies, including collisions. With that in mind, I would like to take away Amendment No. 108, particularly with regard to adding the word "safe" to Clause 33(5)(d). I am not so persuaded by the rest of Amendment No. 108 but I believe that the safety issue does require further consideration and, with the leave of the House, I shall consider it further and the possibility of bringing forward a proposal at Third Reading. Subject to that, I hope that the noble Lord will not pursue his amendment.
Lord Luke: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I confess that I am a little disappointed by his response. Nonetheless, I still feel that at some stage a proper river strategy should be incorporated in the directives to the mayor. Perhaps we can come back to the issue at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 104 and 105 not moved.]
Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 106.
Page 20, line 3, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—

("(a) the need to ensure that the strategy is consistent with the international obligations of the United Kingdom,

(aa) national policy")

The noble Baroness said: I believe that this is one of the most important amendments to be considered on the Bill. I did try to have it degrouped but there was a bit of a muddle in the office. The only reason I wanted it degrouped was to point out the importance that I attach to it. It goes right to the heart of the relationship between local government, particularly London's local government, and national government. It will also be a precedent for other city authorities with elected mayors and others forms of regional government which may eventually be set up.
As drafted, the Bill requires the mayor to do two things in preparing or revising any of his strategies. First, he must ensure that the strategies are consistent with national policies. Secondly, he must ensure that the strategies are consistent with those international obligations that the Secretary of State may notify to the mayor. I should like to look at each of those two concepts in turn. First, he must ensure that the strategies are consistent with national policy; that is, with the policy of the government of the day. The Bill does not say that the mayor should simply have regard to those policies when formulating his strategies. It does not say that he should simply consider them. Either of those forms of words would mean that the mayor should look at national policy but would not be bound to follow it. The words in the Bill positively impose an obligation on the mayor to follow government policy.
That is a major constitutional innovation that the Government are slipping in through the back door of an extremely long Bill. It is right and proper that a local authority should have regard to national—that is, government—policy. However, having regard to government policy is not the same as being required to follow it if the local council disagrees with it. That is a total negation of the concept of local government. The council, or in this case the mayor, should be able to decide that the policy should not be applied in their particular circumstances; or that the policies are wrong. The law does not oblige a local authority to obey the Secretary of State's policies. It requires the local authority to obey primary or secondary legislation. Parliament has not previously required local councils to follow national policies except in rare and special cases: for example, the interpretation of the contaminated land regime. The Secretary of State will have policies on local government responsibilities and the way that they carry them out. It is right and proper that he should do so. However, he cannot demand obedience unless Parliament has given him a direct power or the responsibility for determining appeals by the public against local council decisions.
Subsection (5)(a) is a dangerous and damaging innovation. It creates as a matter of law the necessity of local government acting consistently with government policy. If the Bill remains as drafted, the mayor would be hard pressed in law to justify a failure to follow government policy. Indeed, in Committee the Minister referred to judicial reviews.
The second part of the amendment reverses the rampant centralization—the very over-centralisation that the Government claim as a justification for their

345
policies of devolution, regionalisation and the creation of the Greater London Authority. The mayor would be required to take national policy into consideration but he will not be required to follow it or even be consistent with it. This part of the amendment ensures that the mayor's role is not merely to produce strategies as the proxy of the Government: to be the Government's rubber stamp.
The other part of the amendment requires the mayor to ensure that his strategies are consistent with the international obligations of the United Kingdom. As drafted, the Bill has the rather curious obligation for the mayor to follow,
"such international obligations as the Secretary of State may notify to the Mayor".
That means that the Secretary of State could pick and choose which international obligations he would require the mayor to follow. What about any other international obligations about which the Secretary of State did not formally notify the mayor? Is the mayor free to ignore them? Of course not. Perhaps I do the Government an injustice over this extraordinary passage. Perhaps the Government intended that the mayor should be reminded of international obligations to which he is subject. We do not need an Act of Parliament to tell the Secretary of State to do that; and certainly not one in the form at present proposed. Like all public bodies, the mayor's actions, not merely his strategies, should be consistent with the country's international obligations.
The amendment maintains that obligation while removing the implied limitation of the present wording to only those obligations notified by the Secretary of State. Compliance with international obligations should not be dependent on a letter from the department to the mayor.
When this same amendment was debated in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, gave us the benefit of the Government's thoughts on the subject, which I promised to study. I am sorry to say that in this case, uncharacteristically, he does not appear to have answered the points that I and other noble Lords who supported me then made, which is why have brought the matter back before your Lordships. In dealing with the aspect of international obligations, he said,
"The GLA is not a nation state which makes its own international obligations"."—[Official Report, 23/6/99; col. 926.]
We entirely agree with that. That is why we want the mayor to have regard to all this country's international obligations, not just such of them as the Secretary of State may designate. The noble Lord told my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith at col. 930 that,
"The duty to ensure that international obligations are carried out falls on the state. The state must therefore notify those authorities that are required to act in conformity".
We entirely agree. We also agree with what he told me two paragraphs further on in col. 930, when he said,
"Clearly, there are many international obligations which are totally irrelevant to the GLA".
He disclaimed any intention to cherry-pick but that is precisely what the clause does, as drafted, whether that was the Government's intention or not. If we are both
346
agreed that, first, the Secretary of State should notify the mayor of any international obligations affecting London—which we presume he would normally do as a normal executive act without being told to do so by statute—and, secondly, that he is only seeking to exclude irrelevant obligations, then our amendment produces precisely the effect on which we both agree, but without the ambiguity that simply bothers us.
I am surprised that, having heard of the disquiet that the wording of the clause has produced, particularly including the word "such", and having acknowledged that there was a genuine problem, the Government have not introduced their own amendment to tidy up what is clearly a loose piece of drafting.
As regards the mayor being obliged as a matter of law to conform to national policy in framing his strategies, the Minister's reply has confirmed our worst fears. That is precisely the Government's intention. When the Minister replied to the earlier Amendment No. 111, moved by his noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton, he said at col. 925:
"The mayor must, in preparing any strategy, ensure that it is consistent with national policies".
Noble Lords should note the word "must". It is not just a question of "have regard to" as the clause under debate proposes: he "must ensure" their consistency with national policies.
Having taken considerable time in discussing the issue of international obligations, the Minister only briefly touched on that part of the amendment dealing with national policy, where he said at col. 929:
"This is not a centralising matter. It is designed to ensure that London plays its part in the delivery of our national policies and our international obligations".
Ensuring that London plays its part in delivering our national policies, as the Minister put it, is centralising. If it is not, then what is it? That one remark confirms what we fear. The clause, as drafted, makes the mayor a Government poodle whose purpose is to act as a figurehead while obeying the orders of the Secretary of State, but taking the blame in London if anything goes wrong. The clause, as drafted, removes the mayor's promised powers and ability to decide his own policies. It merely leaves him applying the Government's policies as the proxy of the Secretary of State. This amendment restores the balance. It allows the mayor to decide what is best. It allows the people of London to have the sort of mayor they voted for in the general election and in the referendum. It allows the people of London to get in each term what they were voting for in the successful candidate for mayor. Both parts of the amendment re-establish the mayor as an independent political figure with independent executive powers, elected by the popular vote of the people of London to reflect their aspirations and concerns. That is what the Government promised in their manifesto. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, it may be because of the time of night, but I found the argument of the noble Baroness perplexing, because surely it is the duty of the Government and the Secretary of State to point out to the authority, as stated in Clause 33(5)(a), what are the

347
relevant international obligations. Otherwise it will impose on the mayor the impossible task of having to identify what is relevant and what is not. Therefore I believe it is a helpful provision and not a hindrance as regards this subject matter. It is quite clear that international obligations are paramount. Having said that, as a matter of convenience it is right that those issues should be pointed out by the Secretary of State to the mayor.
I am a little bewildered by paragraph 5(d). That is why I suggested that it might be wise to leave it out, at least for the purpose of this debate. Does it not, as it stands, contain a question mark about whether in fact the mayor might even suggest that the river is closed down with respect to passenger transport services and the transportation of freight? That is unlikely to take place, but it is an ambiguity and one which should be dealt with in the legislation, although not in the way in which it is represented in paragraph 5(d). I will be interested to hear what my noble friend has to say on those points.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, we shall not be speaking to the amendments on community safety and crime prevention which are tabled in this group. My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones spoke to the subject matter earlier. However, I shall speak to Amendment No. 116, which relates to Clause 34(6). It proposes a small amendment in connection with revision of any of the mayor's strategies. We propose that the assembly—this is one of the few places where we are going to make the point—has a role in determining whether a revision to a strategy will or will not materially affect it and therefore whether there should be further consideration on it.
At the last stage of the Bill, the Minister indicated on a similar amendment that the provision was to allow the mayor to make minor and drafting changes to a strategy. Of course we have no objection to provision being made for that possibility. However, the provision in this subsection is rather wider. The clause is about far more than minor or drafting amendments. Amendment No. 116 seeks to provide some sort of brake on the mayor, because, if the mayor is acting slightly ambitiously by suggesting merely a small revision that does not require further consultation, the assembly with its scrutiny role will be well placed to determine whether or not that is actually the case. It will thereby act as a guardian for the interests of Londoners who would, if the mayor did not take such a restrictive view, be able to contribute to a consultation. We have proposed that the decision under this subsection as to whether a proposed revision will or will not materially alter the strategy is not one for the mayor alone, but should also involve the assembly.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, this is a slightly mixed bag of amendments. Through Amendment No. 106 the noble Baroness has again sought to address the issue of strategies being consistent with international obligations and national policy. The noble Baroness
348
has referred to my previous explanation that the Bill makes it clear that the mayor's strategies must be prepared within the context of national policy decisions and those national policy decisions will include some international obligations, some international treaties and some international cooperation. The GLA is a city-wide governance of supreme importance within the United Kingdom, but it is not a nation state or even a city state.
It is therefore important that the mayor's strategies are consistent with international obligations, but those international obligations are the responsibility of the state and not of lower tiers of government. Therefore, it is important for the state to decide which of those obligations will be carried out and met by the mayor. That is why the Bill provides for the GLA to meet those obligations where the central state has notified the obligations to the GLA and where guidance has been given about the contributionwhich it is to make in relation to those obligations.
It is not unique for national bodies to be subject to government policies. In this as in other areas, the Government set targets which authorities are expected to meet and use as a basis for their own strategies. That applies in relation to international targets as well as to other targets.
I turn to the other main point made in this discussion, which I believe relates to Amendment No. 116 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. That amendment would require assembly agreement to be given before the mayor could waive the consultation requirements set out in Clause 34 in relation to revising strategies. Again, I believe that that is a reflection of a quite deep-seated difference between us in relation to the mayor and the assembly. We believe that that must remain a matter for the discretion of the mayor. The mayor would obviously have to be able to demonstrate that he had good reason for deciding not to consult on a particular strategy and he would have to be able to justify the view that the revision did not materially affect the strategy. Those reasons could be challenged and tested by the assembly in its normal procedures and in its regular statutory meetings with the mayor and others. However, we believe that the discretion should be a matter for the mayor.
Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness would not pursue this amendment. I hope also that the noble Baroness will not pursue Amendment No. 116 in due course.
11.45 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I agree with the Minister that the hour is late. However, I did not totally understand his answer. We have no objection to the fact that the mayor of London must have policies which are consistent with this country's international obligations. That is very much the point which we are making. The Bill refers to obligations such as those that are notified by the Secretary of State. It may be that, for one reason or another, even by some sort of omission, the Secretary of State did not notify the

349
mayor of a particular international obligation, which, if the mayor did not take note of it, would cause quite a lot of problems. We certainly do not consider London to be a nation state.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, with respect, if the Government were to breach their obligations in that way, there is a legal remedy to deal with that. Surely that is sufficient.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, we are not going to argue about the wording at this time of night. All that I am saying is that we have no objection whatever to the mayor's policies having to be consistent with international obligations or with other obligations about which the Secretary of State tells him; but we shall not argue about that now.
With regard to the national policy, the Minister was busy talking about national targets and so on. My amendment does not refer to targets but to policies. The fact remains that this would be a complete break away from the current position as regards local councils throughout the country. The mayor of London is either a special person and a model for something else, or he is not. It seems extraordinary that that strong position which is now being created will be less powerful than is any local leader of a council who could do something different from national policies.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, shakes his head but I can tell the House that I have been lobbied by numerous councillors across the country who are concerned that this is a new move. What the Bill should properly provide is that the mayor should have regard to national policies when he is making his policies. That is what would happen in local government. However, my amendment seeks to provide that his strategy is consistent with national policy.
At the beginning said that I wanted to degroup the amendment because I consider it to be very important. I shall certainly not pursue the matter today. I shall read very carefully what the Minister has said. It is rather late and I believe I may have misheard him. I thought he was talking about targets and I am talking about policies. I urge the Minister to read very carefully what I have said and to take note of what other local councillors are saying because this is a new move which could be extremely dangerous. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 107 and 108 not moved.]
Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 109:
Page 20, line 11, at end insert ("; and
( ) the views of such organisations representative of business as the Mayor considers it appropriate to consult having regard to the impact of his strategy on business")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 109, 110 and 115. The three amendments have a common theme. They
350
require the mayor, at the barest minimum, to consult with business on the impact of his strategies on commerce and industry and to consider the compliance costs of his strategies. Consultation with business interests will not mean that commerce will have a veto over the mayor's strategies or compel him to modify them in any way. However, it does mean that the mayor will not simply be able to blunder in and produce strategies that may have long-term or unforeseen effects simply because he has not sought advice from appropriate sources.
There are some of us who recall the former Greater London Council's disastrous experiment in banning lorries in Central London. Attractive as no doubt that was to the green lobby, it produced a bureaucratic nightmare and heaped untold costs on everyone, especially businesses trying to receive stocks or dispatch goods. Before that there was a no less disastrous direction of industry perpetrated by both political parties. "Make industry move out of London", they said. That is why there is a shortage of unskilled and clerical jobs for the youth of our capital city.?
I shall not indulge in any further recrimination. However, the point I wish to make is that we must ensure that we do not, by accident or through ignorance, make the same mistakes. Further, we have to be sure that London will not be used as the guinea pig for a social engineering experiment. I shall also not comment on the business experience of any of the declared or would-be candidates for the office of mayor. This debate has neither the time nor is it the place for electioneering. However, let me instead point out the irrefutable truth that since there are no qualifying examinations for political office, and no apprenticeship requirements—more is the pity, some of us might say—it is not impossible that the person elected as mayor may never have been in commercial employment. He or she may never have had the problem of covering the employees' payroll on a Friday afternoon. They may not know the meaning of the three most dreaded words in business: negative cash flow.
A lifetime politician, a political adviser, or even a journalist, teacher or lawyer may not necessarily be a business orientated mayor. That is what the amendment aims to address It requires the mayor to seek advice, even if in the end he chooses to ignore it. Let him take the political risk, when it all goes wrong, of having someone say to him, "Well, I told you so".
The issue raised in Amendment No. 110 relates to compliance costs. It is surprising that this is not part of the proposed requirements. In the case of new legislation passed by Parliament, this is a factor to be considered, so why does it not have to be by the mayor? Restraints on noise are superficially desirable, but in an area where there is a great number of restaurants and bars, what would be the effect on local jobs? The mayor should at least be able or be made to consider the matter.
When imposing requirements for recycling more waste, as distinct from handing it over to the dustman, what will be the effect on small businesses? The mayor should at least give that a passing thought before deciding on his strategy.
We can all think of numerous examples where one desirable objective can also result in an undesirable effect. It is only a question of weighing up the pros and cons. That is all that the amendment requires him to do.
It is convenient to include Amendment No. 115 in the same group, even though it relates to Clause 34. Clause 34(1) requires the mayor, when preparing or revising any strategy, to consult the assembly, functional bodies, the London borough councils, the Common Council and any other body or person he considers appropriate. The amendment simply adds "business" to the list of those specifically named, rather than leaving it to the mayor to decide whether to include businesses in the catch-all of "any other body or person".
As has become the invariable practice of the Government, the Minister dismissed the identical amendments by saying that they were not necessary. He prayed in aid Clause 34(2) and Clause 27(3), claiming that they covered these issues. With respect, they do not. Clause 34(2) refers back to Clause 27(3) for a definition of those to be included in the phrase "any other body or person". Clause 27(3) includes,
"bodies which represent the interests of persons carrying on business in Greater London".
Consulting the usual trade and employers' associations goes a long way to achieving what is required, but the vast body of commercial firms, the small businesses, do not belong to those organisations. Why should unattached businesses not have the right to make their views known?
My own experience of these "bodies" is that they do very little consulting with their members; instead, they rely on the decisions of their policy sub-committees. Without naming names, my husband and I resigned our separate memberships of one such body, not because it announced its policy on a particular topic, but because it had not sought members' views before it did so.
It should be clear to the public and to businesses in particular, especially those which are not members of trade associations, that they have a right to be consulted. That right should be clear on the face of the relevant clause. It should not be discoverable only by someone having to hop backwards and forwards through the various subsections of this extremely lengthy Bill.
It is a common theme of the amendments that both the assembly and the mayor should have regard to the views of the wealth creators in our capital city. After all, the three principal purposes of the authority have at their head,
"promoting of economic development and wealth creation in Greater London".
352
If that is the first function of the authority, why should the Government be so coy about boldly including business in the list of those to be consulted, rather than burying it in a pile of verbiage or hiding it in a completely different quarter?
Before the general election, the Labour Party claimed that it had reformed and that it was now extremely friendly to business. By accepting the amendments, that would enable them not only to put that fine sentiment into practice, but also to be seen to be doing so. I beg to move.
Lord Sheppard of Didgemere: My Lords, it would be a great tragedy if we took a step backwards in the Bill. Over the past five or six years, a close voluntary working relationship with business, local government and central government, normally through the Minister for London, has been built up. It would be very sad if we were to go backwards rather than forwards in that respect. I know that noble Lords opposite are conscious of that situation.
We happen to have a great success on our hands: London is a fabulous business success. We must not do anything to damage that. We need to grow more wealth so that we can reduce inequality. We spoke about equality of opportunity earlier.
I see no reason for not supporting the amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, because although the Government have done an amazingly good job—it may not he amazing to them—of convincing business that the GLA is a good and sensible thing for London, it did not necessarily start that way. The amendments would cement that relationship and demonstrate that there will he consultation. We know that there must be. Business will certainly consult with the mayor of London, whether or not he wants to be consulted. It is probably a good idea, therefore, if he or she consulted with business.
I should probably declare an interest to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, in that I am not only a "large businessman" but I also happen to be a "very small businessman" in many start-up businesses, and so on. I am aware, therefore, of some of the problems she describes.
We must find a way to keep businesses of all sizes and types locked in, supporting the whole of this mission. I cannot see any reason why we should not cement that by inserting some of these clauses.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, in Committee we proposed an amendment which was not dissimilar to the first of those tabled by the noble Baroness. We, too, regard the relationship between the new authority and London's business sector as very important. The noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, quite rightly referred to the way in which the relationship between local government and business in London has developed

353
over the past few years. He has played no small part in that. He has provided a terrific lead. I was fortunate enough to be involved as a board member of London First when it was originally formed. It was an illuminating experience to see business and local government, under his assistance and with his lead, gradually begin to understand one another rather better than before.
We received considerable assurances from the Government in Committee. However, I should like to put on record our concern that there should be no doubt about the importance of involving business in the same way as other sectors, and being particularly sensitive to the needs of business.
In response to the noble Baroness, I reject the notion that strategic government in London, implementing policies which reflect environmental concerns, will necessarily, therefore, be against business. I do not believe that the two are mutually exclusive. She referred to the London lorry ban. For the record, perhaps I should briefly make the point that that was not an anti-business strategy but was to reduce the traffic going through London and not to places within London. There are exempted routes and a licensing scheme. These matters are often difficult to balance. However, we should not allow ourselves to believe that business and environmental interests are somehow in two pigeon-holes and cannot be put together.
Earl Bathurst: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for acknowledging my interjection regarding safety. However, my noble friend has withdrawn her Amendment No. 108. As far as I can see, that is the only mention of safety in any of the amendments and, indeed, in the Bill. Amendment No. 108 contains the little word "safe" which might appear to be there accidentally. If the noble Baroness withdraws her amendment or if the Minister will not accept it, could he give assurances that safety is written in fiery letters in the strategy for which the mayor will be responsible. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that or perhaps he might consider, with his colleagues, introducing an amendment at a later stage which brings in safety as a policy within the strategy.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as regards the latter point, I am sorry if that was not clear to the noble Lord. I believe I specifically told him that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, withdrew his amendment on the basis that I would consider—partly in relation to the "Marchioness" inquiry but also in the light of this amendment—whether to bring forward at Third Reading an amendment relating to safety in this context. It would be without commitment: at this point I needed to consult somewhat more widely. I did agree to take it away, and it was on that basis that it was withdrawn.
354
Turning to the main point of these amendments, I find it slightly difficult because, although I agree with quite a lot of what the noble Baroness said, together with virtually all of what the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, said, I do not know why it is necessary to put the amendment in here. The noble Baroness dismissed my earlier assurances, but the Bill does say that the mayor must consult bodies which represent the interests of persons carrying on business in Greater London.
The noble Baroness seemed to suggest that her formulation, which also refers to organisations representing business, was somehow closer to the grass roots of business. I do not myself see that, and since that formulation relates to the general duties of the mayor I do not know why we need to repeat it in a different form at later stages. I do not want to have a dispute with noble Lords opposite on this, because clearly it has been central to the formulation of the whole strategy for London that we take on board discussions with representatives of business and put into the Act and its procedures a requirement to involve business in all the key decisions which the mayor will produce under this Bill.
I find it unnecessary to specify this in a slightly different way from what was specified earlier, because that in itself could lead to confusion at various stages of this Bill. I would hope that noble Lords opposite, and the business community of London, would accept that general position as being indicative of the Government's intention to ensure that the mayor works closely with business of all kinds in London. That is certainly our intention, and it would be a very foolish mayor indeed who attempted to ignore that. Indeed the Bill would not permit that. I simply do not think that we need to write it into every clause and I would ask noble Lords opposite to consider that what is already in the Bill would meet their points.
Regarding Amendment No. 115, which refers to compliance cost assessment, that is a term of an which is related to legislation and the authority is not a legislative authority. Nevertheless, the noble Baroness is clearly concerned not with compliance cost assessment in a technical sense, but with the costs which would fall on business or distort the economics of London. It is clear that the cost implications of the mayor's strategy and other related matters such as unemployment will be part of the consultation that has been described, and so I think the noble Baroness's point would be met. I do not think we ought to fall out over this. I hope that, on consideration, noble Lords will see that we have made our intentions clear. If not, no doubt they will return to these matters at a later stage.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I can certainly assure the noble Lord that in none of our amendments do we intend to fall out with the Minister: it is the very last thing that we would dream of doing.

355
As the noble Lord has explained the position so well and as he has asked me to consider it carefully, I shall undoubtedly do so. Perhaps in return he might also consider some of the things that we have asked him to consider during the course of our debates, particularly those where there might be confusion. Having said that, it is with pleasure that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 110, 111 and 112 not moved.]
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved, That further consideration on Report be now adjourned.—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at five minutes past midnight.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the Food Standards Bill
Tuesday, 12th October 1999.
The Committee met at half-past three of the clock.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) in the Chair.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux): Before I put the Question that the Title be postponed, it may be helpful to remind your Lordships of the procedure for today's Committee stage. Except in one important respect, our proceedings will be exactly as in a normal Committee of the Whole House. We shall go through the Bill clause by clause; noble Lords will speak standing; all noble Lords are free to attend and participate; and the proceedings will be recorded in Hansard. The one difference is that the House has agreed that there shall be no Divisions in the Grand Committee. Any issue on which agreement cannot be reached should be considered again at the Report stage when, if necessary, a Division may be called. Unless, therefore, an amendment is likely to be agreed to, it should be withdrawn.
I should explain what will happen if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting. The noble Lord who is speaking will, I hope, come to the end of the paragraph quickly. This Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division bells are rung and will then resume after 10 minutes.
Title postponed.
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. A1:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
("Preliminary

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the Food Standards Bill

  MEANING OF "FOOD" AND OTHER BASIC EXPRESSIONS
  .—(1) In this Act "food" includes—

  (a) drink;

  (b) articles and substances of no nutritional value which are used for human consumption;

  (c) chewing gum and other products of a like nature and use; and

  (d) articles and substances used as ingredients in the preparation of food or anything falling within this subsection.

  (2) In this Act "food" does not include—

  (a) live animals or birds, or live fish which are not used for human consumption while they are alive;

  (b) fodder or feeding stuffs for animals, birds or fish;

  (c) controlled drugs within the meaning of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971; or

  (d) subject to such exceptions as may be specified in an order made by the Ministers—

  CWH 2

  (i) medicinal products within the meaning of the Medicines Act 1968 in respect of which product licences within the meaning of that Act are for the time being in force; or

  (ii) other articles or substances in respect of which such licences are for the time being in force in pursuance of orders under section 104 or 105 of that Act (application of Act to other articles and substances).

  (3) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires—
  "business" includes the undertaking of a canteen, club, school, hospital or institution, whether carried on for profit or not, and any undertaking or activity carried on by a public or local authority;
  "commercial operation", in relation to any food or contact material, means any of the following, namely —

  (a) selling, possessing for sale and offering, exposing or advertising for sale;

  (b) consigning, delivering or serving by way of sale;

  (c) preparing for sale or presenting, labelling or wrapping for the purpose of sale;

  (d) storing or transporting for the purpose of sale;

  (e) importing and exporting;

  and, in relation to any food source, means deriving food from it for the purpose of sale or for purposes connected with sale;
  "contact material" means any article or substance which is intended to come into contact with food;
  "food business" means any business in the course of which commercial operations with respect to food or food sources are carried out;
  "food premises" means any premises used for the purposes of a food business;
  "food source" means any growing crop or live animal, bird or fish from which food is intended to be derived (whether by harvesting, slaughtering, milking, collecting eggs; or otherwise);
  "premises" includes any place, any vehicle, stall or moveable structure and, for such purposes as may be specified in an order made by the Ministers, any ship or aircraft of a description so specified.
  (4) The reference in subsection (3) above to preparing for sale shall be construed, in relation to any contact material, as; a reference to manufacturing or producing for the purpose of sale.
  The noble Baroness said: I am very grateful to everyone concerned for the fact that my first amendment has been accepted for debate, because there was a slight misunderstanding about the tabling of it. While I am saying a few words of thanks I should like to thank the Minister for her meeting with us and her civil servants last night, which we found very helpful. I should also like to record my thanks to those in the Public Bill Office. Other people like myself have experienced great difficulty in bringing forward amendments in time because of the fact that the Second Reading took place at the very end of last Session since when the House has not been sitting. I am most grateful to everyone for being so forbearing.
  At Second Reading I brought to your Lordships' attention the fact that this Bill does not include a definition of food. In his reply the noble Lord, the Chief Whip, stated that because the definition of food is set out in the Food Safety Act 1990 there was no need to repeat it. We ask the Government to consider this again. The food standards agency is a completely new body, and while we understand that there is no

  CWH 3
  obligation that a definition should be stated, we feel that it is worthwhile so to do. It is all of a page and a half, and anyone seeking information about food or referring to the agency would have that definition at their fingertips rather than having to go back and find past Acts, in particular the 1990 Act.
  This is not an obscure piece of legislation. This will be an Act that many people and organisations have been urging on the Government for some years. The ordinary household shopper is possibly more interested in the food standards agency than even their tax bill. It is surely reasonable to provide them, within the Act, with the definition of food under which the agency will work. I beg to move.
  Viscount Thurso: Perhaps I may begin with an apology. I should very much have liked to speak at Second Reading but I was unable to do so and I look forward to taking part in the rest of the proceedings on the Bill. Perhaps I may also, on behalf of my own team, say thank you to the Minister for the extremely helpful meeting which we had yesterday. It helped to promote matters, and one hopes will be useful for the rest of our proceedings.
  Broadly speaking, we are supportive of the thrust which the amendment seeks to address. However, I should like to ask one or two specific questions of the Minister. First—this is purely for my own benefit—given that food is defined as including chewing gum and other products of a like nature, surely that would also fit into the definition under paragraph (b),
  "articles and substances of no nutritional value"
  Secondly, what about vitamins and mineral supplements? If one looks at the definitions as they are set out in the amendment, they do not fall under paragraph (b) because they certainly have some nutritional value, they do not appear to be chewing gum and they are not necessarily used in connection with food. So I wonder whether, in addressing that, the Minister might be able to enlighten me on those two points.
  The Earl of Selborne: I wonder whether I might also thank the Minister very much for the session we had yesterday afternoon, which helped enormously to set the scene for these proceedings. I was particularly grateful to her for arranging for me to be sent a note on responsibility for water, because this is one of the issues of definition with which I am sure one day courts will have to grapple. As I understand from the most helpful note I was given, water remains the responsibility of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions until it is put into the food process. In other words, it could be through irrigation, it could be by putting it into a bottle of water. So at some moment, which is quite difficult to follow at times, the water moves from the responsibility of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to the agency.
  CWH 4
  However one sets out the definition, the amendment does not address this issue. Perhaps it is not necessary but I should like an assurance from the Minister that the courts will have no difficulty in determining when water is food and when it is not. I have to admit that, in spite of the very helpful note, I still feel that there is plenty of room for confusion.
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Hayman): I am grateful to noble Lords who have expressed their thanks for yesterday's meeting. I am very conscious that we have been carrying out some of the processes around the Bill in a somewhat telescoped timeframe from what would be normal, and I recognise that this has caused some difficulties. I hope that the process of scrutiny within the Moses Room will make it easier to join up some of the gaps and come against some of those difficulties.
  I quite understand why the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, has suggested the amendment. It is important to have a proper understanding of what is meant by food in order to appreciate the area in which the agency will act. Equally, I appreciate the concern to have a proper understanding of what is meant by water and who is responsible for the quality of water. However, I believe that the amendment is unnecessary and might even create confusion. It is unnecessary because, as my noble friend the Government Chief Whip said at Second Reading, the provision is taken directly from the Food Safety Act 1990 and Clause 36 of the Bill makes perfectly clear that the definitions from the 1990 Act apply in this case.
  Moreover, unfortunately the text of the amendment does not take into account some subsequent changes to Section 1 made since the 1990 Act and, therefore, will cause some confusion as there will be slightly differing definitions on the statute book.
  Overall, however, it is important to bear in mind that the agency will operate within the existing framework of food safety legislation and should, therefore, rely on the existing statutes wherever possible. Generally, the Food Safety Act is regarded to have worked well over the past 10 years. The Bill sets up a new organisational structure for the food standards agency. It is important that the first clause of the Bill should state very clearly what the purpose of that agency is as Clause 1 does at present. It does not change the basis of the legislation of the Food Safety Act and, therefore, it is not necessary to bring forward a definition of "food" within the context of the Bill.
  Since yesterday afternoon's meeting, I have put together, as I promised, a short note explaining some of the definitions in the Bill showing where they are made, and in the 1990 Act. Although this clearly does not form part of the Bill or of the explanatory material, we do have copies available. If Members of the Committee would find that helpful, we can let them have copies of those definitions. Of course, once you see a definition, it leads you down certain byways, and I have to say to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, that my first question was about chewing gum when I saw the definition, just as his was. The answer, as I understand it, is that chewing gum and other products

  CWH 5
  are not ingested and therefore not consumed, as in subsection(b), but it was necessary that they should be governed by the Food Safety Act, and that was the reason for making specific reference to them.
  I hope that on that basis noble Lords, having seen the definitions that are available and the references back to the Food Safety Act, will feel reassured that there is clarity as to what is meant by food in this Act and that it is not necessary to repeat the definition—particularly one that is not completely in line with that which is now governed by the Food Safety Act.
  I can say to the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, that we do not believe that the courts would have any difficulty on definitions of water. The framework for regulating the water supply will not be changed in any way by this Bill. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
  Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister for her response, which obviously is not the overall response I would hope to have. However, having listened to what she had to say, and hopefully having a chance to look at the copies of the new definition that she has available for us, perhaps we can come back to this issue at a later stage. Under these circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 1 [The Rod Standards Agency]:
  The Earl of Radnor The Earl of Radnor moved Amendment No. 1:
  Page 1, line 12, after ("consumption") insert (", production and supply")
  The noble Earl said: I should like to present my apologies for not being present at the Second Reading and I should probably declare an interest in that I am a breeder and processor of fish.
  Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 go together. They are purely a matter of disposing of a phrase and replacing it with a shorter one which has precisely the same meaning. Since I have been in your Lordships' House parliamentarians, on the whole, have produced far too many laws and those that they produce are far too long. I would rather hope that these two brief amendments might therefore be acceptable. I beg to move.
  The Countess of Mar: I apologise to the Minister for being pedantic. She may recall that yesterday there was a discussion about the meaning of the word "risk". I am unhappy about the use of the word "risk" in this context.
  Perhaps I may point her to the definition of "hazard" given by the World Health Organisation and the Local Authorities Coordinating Body on Trading Standards. It is:
  "the potential to cause harm to a consumer."
  It can be physical, chemical or microbiological. A risk is:
  "the likelihood that the hazard will be realised".
  CWH 6
  It is a mathematical probability. The noble Baroness said yesterday that it would be the dictionary definition. I went to the Complete Oxford Dictionary whose definition of risk is:
  "Hazard, danger; exposure to mischance or peril".
  It is obvious that there hazard and risk are interchangeable whereas, in technical terminology, they mean two completely different things. If this amendment is accepted, where the word "risk" is used in this context in the Bill I should prefer to see the word "hazard". Apart from that, I agree with the amendment.
  3.45 p.m.
  The Earl of Selborne: I wonder whether I can join the ranks of pedants on this matter. I entirely agree that we have to recognise that you cannot protect from risk as the Bill suggests at the moment, but what you can do is reduce the exposure to risk. We live in a society in which risk is a fact of life and any attempt by legislators to protect from risk causes the confusion that a risk, however small, must be something one has to guard against. Hazard can be reduced to eliminate it, but risks have to be assessed to determine whether the risk is something one is prepared to live with or not. The idea that one can in any way prevent risk is misleading.
  Lord Desai: I said at Second Reading that the public are no longer satisfied with a technical definition of risk. Therefore one of the main tasks of this body will be to interpret risk in a much broader sense than the mathematical probability of a hazard happening. One of the critical things we face is that if do not use the word "risk" people will wonder what we are in business for. I do not believe that "hazard" is sufficiently broad to capture that. One of the tasks of this agency will be to take on board the word "risk" but then look at the way people perceive risk. The way people perceive risk is different from the way mathematicians calculate risk. Therefore it is important that we keep the larger consequences of that. Of course, the Bill says "protect" people from risk; it does not say "eliminate" risk. I believe it is important that the word "risk" be there. If it were any milder word we should be suspected of evading our responsibility.
  Lord Clement-Jones: I am moved to follow on from the noble Lord, Lord Desai, because it is vital that the agency does have that precise role. If we split too many hairs about whether something is a hazard or a risk, there is a danger that the agency will have an unclear role. The clear role of the agency must be to help us to develop the language of risk. It is one of the key problems we have now, whether it is in health or food or other areas. It might even be transport safety. I very much support what the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said and I support the retention of the existing words.
  Lord Northbourne: The logic of the situation seems to be that if we were to take the definition of "risk" of the noble Countess, Lady Mar, as being likely that a hazard will be realised, and we read that into the text of Clause 1(2), we get:
  "The main objective of the Agency in carrying out its functions is to protect public health from the likelihood that a hazard will be realised".
  The Countess of Mar: A potential of harm to the consumer.
  Lord Northbourne: If one were to substitute that for the word "risk", one would still come up with an extremely sensible interpretation.
  The Countess of Mar: What we are talking about is the interpretation that will be put on it in a court of law. Perhaps I should have declared an interest: I am a specialist producer of goat's cheese. As such I am required to make a hazard assessment of the critical control points under the regulations. I understand what a hazard is in the technical sense. My hazard then becomes a risk if I ignore the hazard. If I am to be taken to court for producing food that is microbiologically or chemically or physically unsound, it will be that terminology that will be used in a court of law. I would prefer to see it on the face of the Bill.
  Baroness Hayman: We have had a short but interesting debate on the issue of risk, its definitions, possible alternatives and formulations of a concept that we all understand quite clearly in terms of the role of the food standards agency. I do not believe that the debate has been completely on the amendment proposed by the noble Earl, because that amendment does not alter the formulation of "risk" to public health within the definition. It does something different, to which I will return, if I may, in a moment. We looked very carefully at the drafting here and concluded that the use of the word "risks" was the best available alternative in these circumstances. "Hazards" may be thought to be rather too broad and—while the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, makes a valid point in a specialist and a technical sense, in which the theology of risk is developing at the moment—my noble friend Lord Desai explained clearly that the use of the word "risks" has a simple, straightforward and—dare I say?—commonsense understanding, to which most people can relate.
  I should say that it is not intended to mean that the Government or the food standards agency can eliminate all risks. We all understand the limitations which exist in that area. Also, there is a growing recognition of the way in which scientists, regulatory bodies and politicians have to develop together with the public a language of risk that is comprehensible and shared. Some of the worst misunderstandings arise from different usages of the same language. I would suggest to the Committee, however, that the Bill as it reads at the moment is actually the best that we have in statutory terms, although I would fully recognise that, in terms of building up a caseload of
  CWH 8
  policy making, we need to refine our understandings of the concepts of hazard, the concepts of risk and the way in which we communicate those.
  Returning to the specific amendment, I take the noble Earl's point that he is trying to simplify and make clearer the areas to which this Bill attaches. The agency's role, as reflected in the main objective, will be protecting public health from risks potentially affecting them as consumers of food.
  We made clear in the White Paper that protection of public health was the main objective and that the agency would put consumers first. It seems likely—although I am sure that it is not what the noble Earl would have wished—that this amendment might widen its remits to include risks connected with the production and supply of food and actually fundamentally revise its purpose. This would then include, under the drafting that he suggests, matters such as health and safety and environmental risks, which are already dealt with through different legislation and by different government bodies. These amendments are not an appropriate reflection of why the agency is needed, which is to focus on the needs of consumers rather than, for example, those working within the food industry. Obviously, they must also be protected, but through the relevant health and safety legislation rather than through this particular Bill. On that basis, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
  The Earl of Radnor: I can only agree with the noble Baroness that we had a very interesting debate, which was nothing whatsoever to do with these two amendments. Be that as it may, no doubt the issue can come up at a later stage in the Bill and be taken even more seriously.
  As regards the noble Baroness's remarks about my amendments, she might possibly be splitting hairs over this. As far as I am concerned, semantically, what I have put down is exactly as is in the Bill, except that I have cut out about 10 words. I am not quite clear about who is in charge of what, but as far as I am concerned I tabled these two amendments believing—or, I hope, realising—that they conveyed exactly the same idea as was wished to be put across in Clause 1(2). However, I shall go away and think about this mater again. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  The Earl of Radnor The Earl of Radnor had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 2:
  Page 1, line 12, leave out ("(including risks caused by the way in which it is produced or supplied)")
  The noble Earl said: I covered Amendment No. 2 while I was speaking to Amendment No. 1. They go completely together.
  [Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
  Baroness Byford Baroness Byford movement Amendment No. 3:
  Page 1, line 13, leave out ("and otherwise") and insert (", otherwise it is")
  The noble Baroness said: This amendment is intended to clarify the wording of the original clause. Perhaps I may, slightly flippantly, revert to my classroom teacher, Betsy Lines, and take the subsidiary phrase as it reads:
  "The main objective of the Agency … is to protect public health … and otherwise to protect the interests of consumers".
  That connecting "and" suggests that there may be one or more minor objectives to the agency. We do not feel that that is the Government's intention. Hence we propose the removal of the connecting "and" to ensure that everyone understands that the agency has two objectives. The main objective is the protection of the public but it is also charged with protecting the interests of consumers. I beg to move.
  Baroness Hayman: I suspect that here again we are not particularly at variance in terms of purpose. It is a matter of the effect of changing the drafting. Having listened to the noble Baroness I understand what she is seeking to achieve, but perhaps I may explain why in our reading we believe it unnecessary to change the drafting of the Bill as suggested.
  It should be clear from the provisions in Clause 1(2) as drafted that public health protection encompassing both food safety and nutrition will be at the forefront of the agency's activities. However, wider consumer protection matters, such as food labelling and compositional standards, will also be an important part of the agency's work. That is why they are covered in the second part of the main objectives. Indeed food safety and standards cannot be entirely separated. For example, accurate labelling can have important implications for the safety of some consumers, such as allergy sufferers. Inserting a break in the main clause along the lines of the proposed amendment would create such a separation. It would also seem to imply that matters such as labelling are only incidental to the agency's role, and should only be dealt with as a secondary matter. This would be a misrepresentation of the way in which the agency will work, and the importance of all its functions.
  While I would agree that the protection of public health should be given the greatest prominence, we believe that the provision as drafted already achieves that. On that basis I would not see the amendment as necessary. Indeed it might possibly cause some confusion about the agency's role. I hope that on reflection the noble Baroness would feel able to withdraw her amendment.
  Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister for her response. I had not in any way envisaged that it would affect other work which the agency was is doing. It was intended to make quite clear to anyone reading the Bill exactly where its responsibilities lay. Obviously later in our discussions we will come on to labelling nutrition and many other matters into which we will all have great input I was simply trying to make sure that things do not go by default. That was my reasoning for
  CWH 10
  putting forward the amendment. I have listened to the Minister. I will think about her response and at this stage beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  4 p.m.
  Viscount Thurso Viscount Thurso moved Amendment No. 4:
  Page 1, line 13, after ("protect") insert ("and promote")
  The noble Viscount said: I would venture to suggest that this is a relatively simple but important amendment, the effect of which is to add the word "promote" after the word "protect". I would suggest that it is not so much the form of words that are used in the amendment but the purpose behind them and the debate that I hope we can have which is important. It is by way of a probing amendment to find out the Government's thinking on the important issue of whethe the agency should have a proactive role in promoting rather than simply being reactive in protecting.
  We have just had a short debate on the objective of the agency and it could well be argued that the principal objective of the agency—that is to say, to protect—is so important that in any way to dilute that importance would be a mistake. As the Minister has just explained, the use of the words "and otherwise" makes it clear what is the primary responsibility of the agency and gives promotion, important though it is, a secondary role.
  Perhaps I should declare an interest. though I am not sure whether or not it is an interest, which is my involvement at Champneys where we have a great interest in how people are fed, their diet and what that does for them. One of the most interesting observations I have made is how extremely well-educated people, whom one would expect to have some knowledge in matters of nutrition, are greatly lacking in knowledge on the subject. I have always taken an interest in nutrition, partly because I studied it as part of my catering training and partly because one of my cousins is Dr Hugh Sinclair who has written a great deal on the effect of "good" fats in fishes. But that is perhaps for another occasion. It is important to know the difference between good fats and bad fats and there are many noble Lords sitting in the Committee today who know a great deal more about it than I do.
  I suggest that it is extremely important that the public generally have their consumer interest in health promoted, as opposed simply to being protected from the bad things. I ask the Committee to consider that the dissemination of good information is as important as the countering of misleading information and protection. I hope the Committee will feel that it is worthwhile to emphasise promotion on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
  Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: I am another who had to regretfully miss Second Reading through another engagement in July, so I would like to just briefly take this opportunity of saying how much I support what the Government are trying to do with this Bill and

  CWH 11
  congratulate them on eventually having found time to bring it forward in this Session, and also on their excellent process of consultation. This is an important measure.
  I just want to amplify a little bit what the noble Viscount said on this amendment which I believe is a very important one. The objective set out in subsection (2) is laudable as far as it goes, because there is little dispute that the interests of consumers do need protecting, especially in the tricky area of risk assessment—I hope I am using the right word there. But the evidence shows that consumers need just as much guidance on the more positive areas of food choices, and to separate this from the narrower function of safety I think would be unfortunate and would miss an opportunity to bring this up the agenda under a body that will be relatively free from any conflicting interests. I think this point is every bit as important in questions of diet and nutrition as it is over safety.
  Of course this will involve giving dietary advice. A positive remit for nutrition was part of the original concept of the agency but, in the course of the consultation period, it has been watered down to the extent that the Government, in their reply to the Committee report in another place, speak only of a role in "defining what is meant by a balanced diet". Now a balanced diet, however admirable, is hardly cutting edge nutritional advice when it comes especially to those of particular needs, the very young, the elderly, those with cancer, those who are allergic or food intolerant, those in hospital and so on, and I think in the 21st century we could be doing better and the agency would be well placed to fill this breach.
  But one can see the Government's problem, because there is a great fear in this country of being seen to nanny people, especially over food. Tessa Jowell has gone out of her way to disclaim any idea of "telling people what to eat". But advice, my Lords, is not nannying, still less is it compulsory. For my part, I have always been baffled by this sentiment which seems to me rather a bad example of the macho British anti-health culture. As a citizen and taxpayer, I would actually be angry if a government which uses my money to do nutritional research, didn't tell me afterwards, in plain language, what the implications were for my health. The noble Baroness knows that I don't like water fluoridation. That to me is nannying because I can't do anything about it. I have to swallow the stuff. Advice about food choices is something quite different. If I want it, I can disregard it.
  There is also, I suspect, the fear of opposition from big commercial interests. The food industry, like the pharmaceutical industry, is a mighty powerful player and governments don't like tangling with it. Some recent research on the causes of cancer must make the Meat and Livestock Commission nervous and the salt and sugar industries have been fighting a rearguard action against research findings for years, in which government has hardly played a courageous role. Am
  CWH 12
  I to get my advice from a free-standing agency? Or from a government department, part of whose brief is to promote British industry?
  I think, to divert for a moment, there are some interesting parallels with smoking, where many of the arguments are the same. Possibly because the debate there has moved that much further forward, only a small minority feels that anti-smoking advice should not be given, and the government are very brave now with the tobacco industry. But I believe, that we are moving to a time when certain foods or combinations of foods will be seen in the same light as smoking. Anyone who read the 1991 WHO report on Diet, Nutrition and the Prevention of Chronic Diseases would find it hard to evade this conclusion.
  If I have strayed slightly into the territory of amendment No. 10, which seeks to put nutrition on the face of the Bill, it is really because they overlap and I won't need to say much when we come to that in due course. We are still, I think, in the fairly early stages of appreciation of the medical importance of nutrition, since doctors are only just beginning to reclaim this territory after an absence of something like two generations. But if the Food Standards Bill has no brief for positive health promotion in this field, it won't be long, I think, before this omission will be more and more keenly felt and I think we'll all regret that the right path wasn't taken from the beginning. So, two aspects of food advice belong together; and independent agency is the right body to deliver it.
  I do hope the Government will think again on this point.
  Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: Just before we leave this particular point, I am in full agreement with most of what the noble Viscount says. However much we want advice to be given and understood, I would not wish to see it in the form of admonition, which is something quite different. I hope he is clear that that was not the intention.
  The Earl of Radnor: I really think that it should not be a part of the agency's duties to promote or to protect. There is a tremendous danger here, however, which the noble lord mentioned, of interfering with commerce and trade and people's businesses and suddenly starting a scare so that you stop eating this and eat something else instead. It is no part of their business and I suspect that even with all their advice with committees, they will not be quite the right people to have the knowledge and capability of promoting anything promptly anyway and they will be just as liable to make mistakes as the producers of food themselves.
  Lord Northbourne: I should like to support this amendment but not entirely in the sense about which it has been spoken of up to now. It does not seem to me that the process of promoting necessarily relates only to promoting what is good for you: 'I know what is best for you and I am going to promote it for you.' It also means promoting the interests of the consumer; that is, the thing in which the consumer is interested. I declare an interest: I like unpasteurised cheese and I

  CWH 13
  like good claret and neither of those can be obtained under circumstances of total sterilization. I am coming on to raise those issues in subsequent amendments but I would like to say that in that context, I greatly support the amendment to the word "promote" to be included.
  Lord Desai: The agency as it is has a tremendously difficult task. It is loaded with sensitive matters on which it will be asked all sorts of questions. Therefore, if it can manage to do what it is assigned to do, it will be a great achievement. If you add other things onto its remit, then it will be overloaded.
  Let me say one more thing. I am not familiar with all the scientific things that the noble Earl mentioned, but I sense that there is conflicting advice about what is good and what is not good for you—partly because we are all slightly different people. Different things agree with different people. Just as the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, once said about claret and cheese, different people have different likings. I do not want agencies to become involved in matters about which there are differing opinions. I would much rather it did something which is already difficult enough to do. I am not talking about nannying, because people are nannied by private sector agencies. I would much rather it concentrated on matters of importance, about which the public are worried, and not add on other things.
  Lord Rea: Does my noble friend think that the health promotional aspects which will come out of the information produced by the food standards agency will he more in the field of the Department of Health rather than the standards agency itself?
  Having said that, I disagree firmly with the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, that the members of the advisory committees of the agency—if I understood him right—will have a better idea of the scientific findings with regard to the dangers or benefits of different foods and different combinations of foods and different diets than almost anyone else in the country. They will be chosen specifically because they know about those things and have kept abreast with the latest scientific evidence.
  Does my noble friend think that the word "protect", as it is in the Bill, encompasses to some degree "promotion"? If the agency were to produce some of its research findings, or the reports of COMA, with which it will jointly share sponsorship with the Department of Health, and if some of the findings of that research indicate that health is better served by certain combinations of food or by avoiding certain combinations of food, will the agency say so? Will that be part of its activities? Some people might say that is health promotion and, in a sense, it is. Will the agency in fact be able to produce definite recommendations that such-and-such behaviour or dietary pattern is beneficial while others are not? Does that come under the category of "protect", as in the Bill? Or perhaps, in order to accomplish that quite simple advice, should we use the word "promotion"?
  Lord Rowallan: I too feel strongly that promotion and protection are akin to one another. We cannot
  CWH 14
  really protect something without, at the same time, promoting what is good. In the Explanatory Notes there are many cases where we are told what the agency will do to "promote" health, in the form of providing information about a healthy diet and so on. I do not believe we can leave this word out. It is important that it is there in black and white for all to see so that the agency knows that this is part of its remit.
  4.15 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): This has been an interesting debate. I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, for putting forward what he suggests is a probing amendment. This allows us to tease out this important issue.
  The first part of Clause 1 says,
  "The main objective … is to protect public health from risks which may arise in connection with the consumption of food".
  That encompasses nutrition as well as food safety. I know that when we come to Amendment No. 10 we shall debate this further, but it is our belief that the way in which the whole clause is drafted provides a sound legal basis for the agency's health promotion role, as was set out in the White Paper. It is worth reflecting that it is the agency's main role to protect public health from risks which may arise in connection with the consumption of food and otherwise to protect the interests of consumers in relation to food. On that reading, this includes food safety, nutrition and other food standards matters.
  Therefore the agency may well indeed wish to be involved in health promotion matters, and the way in which the main objective is worded allows for that. But the agency's priority is one of protection, which is why that stands as part of the main objective. We believe that the present wording gets the balance right.
  The agency function under Clause 7 in giving advice to the public would include advice on nutrition matters. That could include results of latest research which might well have been funded by the agency into what this means for consumers. That would be available to the public in various ways which the agency will decide upon.
  My noble friend Lord Rea put his finger on the matter. The agency itself is not a health promotion body. What I would expect it to do is to work closely with health promotion bodies such as the proposed health development agency, the National Assembly for Wales, the Health Education Board for Scotland and others. That work might well involve running publicity campaigns on food safety and nutrition matters. It might well involve collaboration or partnerships between the agency and the health development agency and other appropriate agencies where the information might well be provided by the food standards agency but the health development agency may well wish to use that to run campaigns and inform the public generally. Our intention is that the health development agency proposed in the White Paper Our Healthier Nation will be set up early next year taking the place of the Health Education Authority.

  CWH 15
  I hope that I have explained to the Committee that because the protection of the public health remains, and I believe has to remain, the number one focus of the agency, the wording in the Bill as it stands is appropriate. Nevertheless, I believe the agency will have an important role in providing advice to the public and in working with other agencies who themselves may be better able to promote the kind of messages to which noble Lords have spoken.
  On that basis I would invite the noble Viscount to withdraw his amendment.
  Viscount Thurso: I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. The fact that there have been contributions from all sides of the Committee and from all parties has shown the great importance of this issue. I should like to return to two points.
  The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, has been covered by the Minister who has said it is included anyway. The noble Earl, Lord Radnor, was a slightly lonely dissenting voice, if I may say so. The point of his remarks was that there was something subjective involved in this. I wish to make it perfectly clear that I am talking about advice that is wholly objective and based on fact.
  If I may, I will detain the Committee for a moment with a personal experience. My youngest son has just been diagnosed as having a problem directly linked to the fact that he has been consuming "E" numbers. It is very straightforward: he does not pay attention at school. A change in his diet has seen him shoot up his class at prep school remarkably over the past six weeks.
  I would like to have been given some information that allowed me at least to be alerted to that rather than have to send him off to a child psychologist. I am pleased that a happy conclusion is in train for him, but there is an objective role to be played rather than a subjective one.
  The Minister said that nutrition had been encompassed within the Bill. I was delighted to have the Government's assurance on that, and also that it allows for promotion. The only distance between us is the difference between the Minister's words "may wish" to become involved. We would rather like it to be "compelled" to become involved. We totally agree with the Government that the main focus should not be deflected, and feel that this would add to that focus rather than detract from it. On that basis, I look forward to reading in Hansard the contributions of all noble Lords. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Luke Lord Luke moved Amendment No. 5:
  Page 1, line 15, at end insert—
  ("() The Secretary of State for Health shall be accountable for the activities of the Agency to Parliament.")
  The noble Lord said: In this group of amendments, I propose to speak to Amendment No. 5, and my noble friend Lady Byford to Amendment Nos. 6 and 91.
  The consultation document on the agency published by the Government earlier this year envisages a new United Kingdom body operating at arm's length from Ministers. The Explanatory Notes to the Bill state that there will be a non-ministerial government department. However, no provision in the Bill states which Minister will be accountable to Parliament for the activities of the agency. The object of the amendment is to rectify that omission. I beg to move.
  Baroness Byford: At Second Reading, I asked whether the Secretary of State should be defined in this Bill as the Secretary of State for Health. The noble Lord the Chief Whip rejected my suggestion, stating, traditionally, that legislation always refers simply to the Secretary of State. I understand that. He then went on to confirm that it would be the responsibility of the Minister of Health. That does not sit very well with itself.
  As this is a completely new agency, bringing together both former parts of MAFF and parts of the health department, it would seem very desirable that tradition might be waived and a relevant lead department named. There may well be times when crises arise when that is particularly relevant, when the public will wish to know clearly where to turn and where the buck stops.
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: We return to an issue which, as the noble Baroness said, was debated at Second Reading. This allows me to make clear to the Committee that the Secretary of State for Health will have overall responsibility for the agency since he will be responsible for directing policy in the light of the agency's advice. It is worth making the point that a key element of our proposals and the fundamental reason for creating the agency was to remove the perceived conflict of interest that arises through placing responsibility for food safety and the food industry within the same government department.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, referred to the advice given at Second Reading which I am bound to repeat to the Committee today. It is not the convention in primary legislation to specify which Secretary of State takes responsibility for a given set of powers. It is for that reason that the Bill refers only to the Secretary of State. This is necessarily a matter for the machinery of government rather than needing to be set out in primary legislation.
  The noble Baroness thought tradition might be waived. That is a rather dangerous concept to propose in your Lordships' House. It would be unwise for the Committee to entertain a departure from that practice. But I repeat: it clearly will be the Secretary of State for Health who will have overall responsibility for the agency and who will answer to Parliament on its behalf when it is necessary for a Minister to do so. On that basis I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
  Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister for his response. I suspected that I would hear the same response which I heard at Second Reading but that did not deter me from trying to put the measure on the face

  CWH 17
  of the Bill. It is not just a matter for those of us who deal with Bills and legislation; it should be clear to the general public that it was the Secretary of State for Health is responsible. The Minister also said that there might be a conflict of interest. I suspect that when we come to discuss such issues as the Meat Hygiene Service we may well be looking at the same things and I may well be quoting his words back to him.
  I believe in tradition, but I had hoped that as we were moving forward the Government might consider my amendment a little more deeply. As we are moving into the next century, perhaps we could consider putting something on the face of the Bill. That makes good sense to me. However I have heard what the noble Lord has to say.
  Lord Luke: Having listened to the Minister's reply, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2 [Appointment of members etc.]:
  [Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
  4.30 p.m.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 7:
  Page 1, line 22, at end insert (", and
  () at least one shall have experience in the fish industry")
  The noble Lord said: I rise to move Amendment No. 7 and to speak to Amendment No. 18, both of which stand in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Byford. The amendments are not alternatives; they are both self-standing, although they deal with the same problem. That problem is that the fish industry in this country tends, quite rightly in my view, to feel that it is not given proper consideration when it comes to food hygiene, food regulations and the like. All too often, the industry is just lumped in with the meat industry as an afterthought.
  Thai is a problem which can cause real difficulty for the fish industry because it is an entirely different product, and the whole processing system is entirely different. Indeed, if I have my terminology right the hazards are hugely less than the hazards involved in meat and meat products. The safety aspects of fish and the technology of fish science are unique. Fish are cold-blooded animals, unlike the warm-blooded animals about which, by and large, people are concerned when it comes to food safety. Fish have very little in common with farmed animals.
  It is quite a separate industry from the catcher to the retailer. It is a specialist industry and there is no change-over between this and agriculture as we know it. The primary product is obtained—caught—by hunting, which is quite different from agriculture. It is not farmed at all, except for a very few farmed salmon and the like, which I fully accept are different. But in the case of the wild fish industry, it is quite different in every possible way.
  The major food scares in recent years have all had their roots in primary agricultural production, whether it be salmonella in poultry, E. coil in meat, or BSE. Fish is quite different. Leaving aside a problem which some people have with an allergy to shellfish, fish is pretty safe. If fish is off, your Lordships will know it is off because it will smell off and you will not eat it. It is very straightforward. Shellfish are a little different because there is an allergy problem, but I do not believe that encompasses the food safety agency which will be set up. Frankly, I hope that it will not be telling the world, "You must not eat shellfish because some of you may have an allergy to them". Those of us who eat shellfish and happily have no allergy do not need that kind of advice. It is right that people are told that there is a problem for some people who are allergic but I really do not believe that has anything to do with the safety of food as I believe the food agency will be looking at. Shellfish also have problems with contaminants and naturally occurring toxins. I may come back to this point during the course of the proceedings on the Bill to inquire exactly who will have responsibility for problems about testing for some naturally occurring toxins that affect mussels, oysters and the like.
  However, these things do not happen with fish as, let us face it, the general public consider fish; white fish, pelagic fish, herring, mackerel—fatty fish indeed, if I might refer back to something said a little earlier—which are extremely good for you, if I might make a small advertisement for the pelagic fishing industry here.
  The point of my two amendments is that all too often in the past under all governments the fish industry has felt that it has not been properly treated, that its product was not looked at separately but was just lumped in with other foods, especially with meats. In comparison with the food coming from warm-blooded animals, fish has a very good record of safety as far as the public are concerned. Whether it be legislation in this country or whether it be legislation in Europe, all too often it is vet-driven and it is very much meat and meat products-driven. No one really looks at fish and the fish industry separately from the meat industry; no one looks at the hazards in fish alone and decides on regulations for fish that deal with those hazards. All too often, there is a read-across to the meat industry.
  Therefore, I believe it is very important that the agency should link into those bodies which understand fish and the marine environment, which understand how one has to deal with live animals like mussels, oysters, lobster and so on that have to be taken to the cook in their live form. Indeed, oysters have to go further than that in their live form—they have to come to one's mouth in their live form. They have to be properly looked after and great care and attention are given to looking after them, which is absolutely right and proper. That is quite different from anything in the agricultural industry where similar circumstances do not occur for any product.
  My two amendments, therefore, express the concern of the fish industry which I, from my long association with it, certainly share. It is that the food standards agency will deal just with fish as an afterthought to meat and meat products. My first amendment asks that one of the members of the agency should have a fish background. I am pretty certain that I can predict the answer I shall receive from Ministers, because I used to give these kind of answers myself! But it has to be said that they are sometimes—at least they were when I gave them—helpful in that they give assurances which can be prayed in aid later on. So I appreciate that I shall probably not make much progress in trying to ensure that at least one member of the agency will have a fish background. However, when the three authorities are discussing whom they might appoint, I hope they will take into account the fact that fish is quite different.
  My second amendment cannot be so easily dismissed. It seeks to ensure that one of the advisory committees should specifically deal with fish. All the arguments that I have put forward pertain to that. It will be a place to which the agency can go to seek expert opinion on fish, quite separate from the committees that the agency may set up to deal with agricultural products, meat products and so on. I hope I can get assurances from the Government at least on the advisory committees, if I cannot get an assurance on the agency itself, because the fish industry is hugely important for this country and, if I may say so, particularly to Scotland, which produces very healthy food; not only safe food but food that is good for you.
  That is my second plug of the day—I would hastily say to the Committee that I do not have a retainer from the fish industry! However, I had responsibility at one time for trying to ensure that the public understood these matters and old habits die hard. It is an important industry and ought to be properly treated by this agency. I hope that the Government will consider both my amendments and, even if they cannot give me an assurance on the first one, I hope they will be able to give me some assurances on the second. I beg to move.
  Viscount Thurso: I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, for raising the question of the fish industry. It is one of the interests he and I share in common. It is a great industry and he is far more knowledgeable than I on this subject. I should declare an interest, which is that as Chairman of Scrabster Harbour Trust I am responsible for a fish market, and I am in the process of trying to get a fish processing factory built.
  I therefore very much support the overall sentiment he has put forward, which is that care must be taken in dealing with fish and the fishing industry, and its general importance. I am glad that he divided his attack in two because, like him, I think it would be difficult to justify having a member of the agency specifically from one industry, as many other industries would then have a right to claim that their industry should be represented.
  CWH 20
  I am less certain how I feel with regard to the advisory side and I hope we will have an opportunity to debate that at a later stage, or even at this moment. It seems to me that there are genuine interests which certain industries might wish to put forward. The structure of the advisory committees is clearly one way through which this could be done. Wearing another of my hats, having come from the restaurant industry I might wonder how issues particular to restaurants will be taken into account.
  In setting up the agency it is important that we do not create a policeman who is fought by all of the industries over whom he holds sway. It is important that the agency does its job of protection and possibly even promotion, but does it in co-operation with industry. Therefore, this amendment is not only important as regards the narrow issue of the fish industry—which is definitely important—but it is also extremely important in raising the wider issue of how the agency will interlink with the various industries with which it has to work.
  The Earl of Radnor: I support the noble Lord as regards an advisory committee. Fish have a raw deal indeed while yet they last in the seas around these islands. I am a little worried that the balance of the noble Lord's mind veers so much towards trawlers and so on. It is perhaps worth remembering that most of the fish now eaten in the British Isles comprises farmed salmon. The price of cod has gone through the roof because it is so rare. This matter is extremely important and is a difficult issue to tackle. No one is likely to go out on a trawler to see what happens on board, whereas in a fish farm people watch you the whole time to see how you fillet and gut and so on. As I say, this is an important issue but it is difficult to have a member specifically from one industry. If you have a member from the fish industry I do not see why you should not have one from the meat industry and one with experience of salads and so on, instead of this heavy emphasis not on the product but on the areas of our three countries.
  [The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 4.38 to 4.59 p.m.]
  Baroness Wilcox: I support both the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. It is probably known that I am connected with fishing as this House was gracious enough to pass the lobster and ranching legislation that I put through. Therefore I have a vested interest in this matter and support these two amendments, particularly Amendment No. 18 which states that,
  "The Agency shall establish an advisory committee for the purposes of giving advice or information about fish".
  We tend to talk about the fishing industry as though it were already dead, which is not the case. It is certainly in a state of great change and hunting, as we know it, will probably become a sports issue; people will hunt fish for sport. New methods of growing and ranching fish and scientific advancements mean that we will need to be extremely careful about the sort of labelling that we put on fish. The assumption is that

  CWH 21
  fish is easy: we just put it in a pan and fry it. I remember to my cost, however, what pelagic fish can do if moved around at the wrong temperature—those dreadful words "scombo toxins".—and I know that there will be other questions asked later about nutrition. Nutrition labelling for fish is absolutely essential.
  Fish, as has already been said, is generally very good for us, so this is an area where we will be labelling in the affirmative. With the advances that we are going to see in the coming years, however, it will be vital to have a committee not only with consumer representation (as I would wish) but also with scientific representation so that we can pass information to the general public sufficiently early for them to start to understand what is happening within the industry.
  I support the two amendments.
  The Countess of Mar: I too wish to support the amendments. I take issue in a small way with the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, about the safety of fish. If he went to Japan he would find that the incidence of food poisoning caused by fish is much higher than that caused by meat. That is due of course to the way in which the fish is cooked and the diet. In view of what the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, said, it is quite possible that the hazards associated with fish will be far greater with farming because of its intensity than they are at present when fish are caught from the wild. There is a need for a member with a specialist interest, not only in the nutritional value of fish, but also in the special microflora attached to fish and the toxins that they can produce.
  Lord Montague of Oxford: Perhaps I may apologise for not having attended at Second Reading. I am a little hesitant about supporting the idea that someone principally represents fish. We are attempting to set up quite a small board. It would be valuable of course to have experts in everything—for instance, in frozen foods and in wine; there are many areas where expert knowledge would be extremely valuable. However, we have here only eight members, a chairman and a deputy chairman.
  It has been decided that there will be representation in the form indicated in the Bill. If we try to place people on the board who have specific areas of knowledge, important though they are, I shall counsel against it. When it comes to fish, I am second to none in my support of sashimi and I quite understand why in Japan there may well be a higher incidence of poisoning from fish in view of the amount that is consumed, but all that does not make the case for these import ant areas being represented on the board.
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, is always eloquent and never more so than when protecting, if not promoting, the interests of the fish industry. Indeed, it recalls happy days during the passing of the Scotland Act when we debated the Tweed and Esk fisheries I am only disappointed that he was unable to refer to that today.
  CWH 22
  The substantive point is to acknowledge that he is right in emphasising the importance of the fish industry and the distinctive features of that industry, and also the benefits which fish bring to our diets. I do not disagree with that at all. However, I question whether the approach that he is suggesting, both in terms of the actual membership of the agency and also whether it would be right to set into primary legislation the nature of the advisory committee to be set up, is really the right way to go about ensuring that issues in relation to fish are considered appropriately by the agency.
  It may be helpful to the Committee if I say a little about our general intent with regard to appointment of members of the agency, and then perhaps come back to one or two distinctive points about the issue of fish.
  Like many other public bodies, the Government are committed to appointing members to the agency on the basis of individual qualities and not as representatives of particular sectors or other interests. That was proposed in the White Paper and remains our policy. We are looking for an overall balanced membership with a good spread of expertise and experience, but acting collectively in the public interest rather than a board representing particular sectors.
  I accept that it is important for the agency to have members with some practical experience of the industry. It needs to be able to take sound and workable decisions which command the confidence of the industry, and the adverts and information we sent out to members of the public who asked for information about the appointments, which was published in June, made that absolutely clear.
  I appreciate the intention behind the amendment to ensure that the agency has access to relevant high quality advice, but I believe it is too rigid. The noble Lord is as eloquent in putting forward his arguments as he is in anticipating the response that will be made to them, and I am afraid that I am making the response that he forecast. It is wrong to create the impression that some sectors have a right to representation denied to others. As my noble friend Lord Montague suggested, it would lead to calls from other sectors which would say that they, too, wished to be represented in such a way or they, too, wished to have an advisory committee covering their particular interests. Anyone could see that that would soon lead to a very unwieldy body.
  To refer again to the point made by my noble friend Lord Montague, my own experience in the health service when we set up area health authorities in 1974 with an average of 30 members representing a whole host of interests is that not only does it lead to a body which is unwieldy in terms of numbers; it also makes it very difficult to get strong leadership and effective decisions because there are too many interests to balance in that kind of set-up.
  Having said that, it does not mean to say that the fishing sector and other sectors will not be consulted and involved. Indeed, Clause 22 of the Bill obliges the

  CWH 23
  agency to consult widely, and that must include establishing a good relationship with the fisheries sector.
  There is a similar problem with the proposed requirement to establish an advisory committee dealing with fish. Again, the agency will need to maintain a constructive dialogue with all sectors of the food industry on safety and standard issues and will need to take advice from a number of sources to complement its own expertise. It will also be able to assess the need for setting up further advisory committees, once it is established. It is, however, important that the agency itself should be in a position to make those decisions when it is established and when it has resolved the direction in which it wishes to go and weighed up the relative importance of the different issues to be considered.
  The Government will certainly encourage the advisory committees to take a special interest in fishery matters where there is a need to do so. It may be worth me making the point that there will be a committee for Scotland, and given the importance of the fisheries industry to Scotland, I would be very surprised if that committee did not take a close interest in those matters. But again, it must be for that committee to decide.
  In conclusion, I agree that fish is an important and healthy food. It will be essential for the agency to have a good understanding of the issues involved. The suggestion in the amendment tabled by the noble Lord is not the right way to take that forward. On that basis, I hope he will consider withdrawing the amendment.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the Minister for that response which does not particularly surprise me, although I thought he may have gone a little further on the second amendment.
  I had to look occasionally at the amendment to see if I had worded it differently from the way I anticipated. In the amendment I said "experience" in the fish industry; I did not say "represent". I fully accept that no one in the agency should be there to represent one sector or another. It is the experience that I am interested in, and I am certain that there will be many people in the agency who will have experience in the agricultural products industry in its widest term, whether that be meat, vegetables, or whatever.
  When the Government look at the people who apply, I hope they will not turn their backs on experience in the fish industry. There will be people with experience in both, and it would be very good for the fish industry and for the decisions made by the agency if someone with sufficient skills and talents comes forward who has a background in the fish industry either wholly or in addition to a background in agriculture.
  I understand what the Minister is saying. I hope that the people who make these appointments will look at food in its widest aspect and not just concentrate on agricultural products.
  CWH 24
  On the advisory committee, I take his point that it is unlikely that the Scottish one will not contain someone with an interest in fish, but fish processing is a big industry in England. Humberside, for example, has a large fish processing industry, and it is very important to the economy of Humberside. Therefore, it is not just a Scottish issue, it is a UK issue as well and affects many parts of the country. The south-west of England, for example, has a very important fish and fish-processing industry.
  I hear what the Minister says. He is telling me that it is up to the agency to decide in its advisory committees. Towards the end of his reply, he accepted that fish and fish products are completely different in many respects from agriculturally-produced products, and therefore have to be looked at on their own merits, and the hazards involved in their production looked at on their own and not just as add-ons to the meat and agriculture industry. That was the main point I wanted to put on record. If when they read this debate people from the agency take on board some of what I have said, then I will at least feel justified in having put forward the amendments.
  I thank the Minister for his understanding of the points I was seeking to make. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 8:
  Page 1, line 22, at end insert ("; and
  ( ) being appointed under paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (d) shall not prevent the person concerned, at a later date, being appointed to the position of either Deputy Chairman or Chairman")
  The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 8 is a probing amendment. It is tabled simply to make it clear that service in a regional position—namely, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland—or as an appointee of the Secretary of State, does not disqualify that person from holding the position of chairman or deputy chairman.
  The question may well never arise, but in the event that it does, if this amendment is carried the position will be quite clear and will not stretch the Secretary of State's powers in any way. That is my reason for moving the amendment. I beg to move.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: It may be appropriate for me to say a few words about Amendment No. 9, which is a probing amendment. The Bill currently provides that the appropriate authorities should act jointly. The appropriate authorities are currently the Scottish Executive, the Welsh Assembly and, if it comes to fruition, the Northern Ireland Assembly. I am not entirely sure that I should call the United Kingdom Government in this regard because there is no longer a United Kingdom Government. They are acting entirely as the English government, so I shall call them "Whitehall", as I do not wish to use this rather difficult terminology.
  When the words "act to appoint jointly" have occurred in legislation up to date, that has meant that the Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland, Wales,

  CWH 25
  and Scotland, in the case of agriculture, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and in the case of health, the Secretary of State for Health, have exchanged the usual paper round and tried to agree who should be appointed to certain jobs. On occasions departments disagree and those disagreements are then resolved. They have never in my experience gone to a Cabinet committee, but if two Secretaries of State dug their heels in over an appointment they would have to go to some form of arbitration inside the same government. That has always been the case, and it has been relatively easy to resolve those issues because it has been inside the same government.
  The point I am attempting to probe is that it will not be inside the same government in the future. It will be different governments deciding jointly, and I am wondering to what extent they will consult. How will this consultation be carried out? Will one authority have a veto on the appointment made by another authority? If Whitehall decides that it wants to appoint Joe Bloggs and for some reason the Scottish Executive thinks that Joe Bloggs is a thoroughly bad person, will it be able to exercise a veto simply by continuing to say, "I do not agree to Joe Bloggs being appointed."? What happens in the ca se of deadlock between those two parties? That is the reason for my probe into the expression "jointly".
  I understand exactly how it has worked in the past, but we are in a different ball game and I should like a few words from the Minister to explain how the Government envisage these matters will be resolved in the future.
  Baroness Byford: I shall speak to Amendment No. 11 and notify the Committee that I shall not move Amendment No. 12, which was an error on my part. I apologise to the Minister and his team. As regards Amendment No. 11, food production starts with the preparation. both on land and at sea as my noble friend has recalled very clearly, through seed to harvest. It moves then to slaughter and further stages of production. It is right that all the authorities consider a wide range of people when appointing members to the agency, and I am grateful to the Minister for indicating that people will be considered on their wide knowledge rather than their individual input.
  It was of concern to me earlier this year, after the notifications were sent out inviting people to apply to become members, that some very senior member of the farming industry, whom I shall not name at the moment, said, "It is no use my putting my name in; they do not wish people to come from the food production side.". That concerns me greatly because I had not read it that way and I should like to raise the matter at this stage. I am not proposing that a person who is directly a farmer or landowner should considered, but I am extremely worried by the fact that somebody of that calibre has read the notification and assumed he is not be eligible. That is the reason for tabling Amendment No. 11. I might reiterate that I shall not move Amendment No. 12.
  5.15 p.m.
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Perhaps I may deal first with Amendment No. 8. I accept the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, that anyone appointed as a member should not be ineligible for later appointment as chair or deputy. There is nothing in the Bill to suggest that there would be any bar to this; indeed, it already contains provision about reappointment. Schedule 1 to the Bill contains details about the constitution of the agency, including the tenure of office of its members. Paragraph 2(1) of the schedule already provides for the reappointment of members. There is no doubt that this allows for someone who has served as a member to become chairman or deputy chairman, so I believe the amendment is unnecessary and I would ask the noble Baroness to withdraw it.
  I turn to Amendment No. 11. In answer to the noble Baroness's point, may I make it clear that those with experience of food production can already be appointed to the agency either because of their experience of food safety, which goes alongside food production, or because production is another interest to consumers in relation to food. I was a little disturbed at the point raised by the noble Baroness about a potential candidate. I felt that this was not apparent in the information as it was certainly our intention that, in the information provided to candidates, there should have been no doubt that food production experience was relevant. Subsection 3(a) of Clause 2 already makes it clear that the sort of experience being considered is that of food safety and of other interests of consumers of food. We thought that sort of formulation provides the right kind of flexibility, so that the agency has the right mix of members. However, we do not believe that specifying food producers adds anything to the Bill and perhaps casts doubts on the breadth of the rest of the clause.
  We are trying to provide the basis for a high quality, overall balanced board, not a representative body. Having said that, the majority of members will come from the wider public interest background and that is the basis upon which appointments are being made.
  I turn to the interesting points made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, about the impact of the agency both in working as a UK body and in relation to devolved areas of responsibility. We are providing that the National Assembly for Wales, Scottish Ministers and the Department of Health and Social Services for Northern Ireland, together with the Secretary of State for Health, each appoint a number of members as specified.
  As I said earlier, we have always intended that our goal should be to achieve a balanced membership overall. It follows that it is right for the appropriate authorities, using the terminology of the Bill, to consult each other. Otherwise, we could find ourselves with a membership with too much knowledge or experience of, for example, food production and too little of public health matters, or vice versa, instead of a unified body with collective responsibility for the UK as a whole. To go back to our previous debate

  CWH 27
  about issues in relation to the fishing industry, you are much more likely to get a balanced membership if the various appointing authorities are able to discuss with each other the likely candidates and then to ensure that out of that you get broad-based membership, which I believe is so important to the agency.
  The noble Lord asked whether the arrangements in relation to the devolved authorities will cause problems in the event of a disagreement. In relation to appointments or indeed to other matters where the authorities are being asked to act jointly, there may of course be divergences of view but, with respect to the noble Lord, that has not been unusual with arrangements prior to devolution. There have been various arrangements where different governments of state have had to act jointly and that has generally worked well. I have no reason to suppose that it will not work well in the future. Indeed, I am not sure whether the word "common sense" is one I would wish to use at the moment. All experience would suggest that it is in the interest of all the appointment authorities to work well together to ensure a balanced membership and I have no reason to suppose that that will not occur in this case.
  There will also be concordats between the agency and the devolved administrations in relation to how the agency will work with the devolved administrations. That will help lay the foundation for co-operation in the future. In the event of disagreements and the need to resolve disputes, there is the opportunity of a joint ministerial committee to discuss those issues and to seek to resolve them. I am rather more optimistic than the noble Lord about how these arrangements will work. The benefits of co-operation, particularly in terms of a balanced membership, far outweigh the potential for disagreements. On that basis, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
  Baroness Byford: I apologise to the Committee for not putting all of my amendments together; I shall try to make sure I follow them on. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for his response. As he quite rightly said, Amendment No. 8 is a probing amendment. I should like the opportunity to read Hansard more clearly—I was looking at it very quickly—because Schedule 1(2)(1) to which he referred, says,
  "on ceasing to hold that office, is eligible for re-appointment".
  That is not what I was asking about. It does not cover the situation of a person being appointed to a different position, which is my point, rather than being re-appointed. Perhaps the noble Lord would like a chance to come back on that because that is where a little confusion may have arisen. My point related to a new appointment rather than to a re-appointment, which is the reason for my amendment.
  To refer back to Amendment No. 11, I heard what the Minister said about his concern (which was my concern) that people felt that, just because they were in the food production business, they would not be considered. I found that very disturbing because we obviously wish to have a balance of the whole range.
  CWH 28
  That is why I tabled the amendment; that is, to make quite sure that we are content with the way in which the system will work.
  I do not have anything further to say with regard to my noble friend's amendment. I shall let the Minister respond.
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Perhaps I may say briefly to the noble Baroness that re-appointment does not necessarily mean re-appointment to the same position.
  Baroness Byford: I did not read it that way, and I am glad of the clarification. If this needs any further defining then, perhaps when we have had a chance to look at Hansard more clearly, we will be able to come back to it at Report stage. It is just slightly confusing. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
  Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No.10:
  Page 2, line 9, after ("safety") insert ("and standards including nutrition and labelling")
  The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment we welcome the Minister's statement that nutrition is implicitly included in the duties of the agency in the Bill. However, the essence of these amendments is to go further and make explicit the agency's role in relation to nutrition and labelling in Clauses 2, 6, 7, 8 and 9. We believe it is essential that, if the agency is to be effective, then it must have a broad remit which includes both nutrition and labelling. We believe that that should be made explicit.
  Food quality and nutrition are just as important as food safety for public health. Indeed, the Acheson Report clearly showed the extent of nutrition inequality in this country that needs to be tackled. We found that a very valuable report. Nutrition messages are often a matter for some debate, which is why we believe it is essential that nutrition is handled as independently as possible and that nutritional considerations are handled within the open and transparent climate that we hope the agency will provide.
  There are those who would argue against the agency having a nutritional role at all. There are points that could be made on that, about focus and so on, but it is not our understanding that the Government are making that point in the first place. I believe we need to go back to the original White Paper and I make no apologies for referring to this. There are some eight points on page 33 of the original White Paper, A Force for Change, that relate to nutrition and it goes into some detail on the agency's duties. That is repeated to a degree. The draft Bill commentary states:
  "The agency's function will allow it to exercise the role which the White Paper envisaged for it in nutritional policy".
  It is clearly stated that the agency will have that nutrition role. Why, therefore, in view of the fact that there are some eight duties here, is not being made explicit? It seems extraordinary. The White Paper is quite detailed. It states that the agency will,
  "provide practical guidance in relation to nutritional aspects of the food chain, including production and catering".
  Those are some very broad duties there. It is our case that these duties should be explicitly included in the legislation.
  I believe that Amendment No. 24 is now grouped with these amendments, and we very much support that amendment in spirit. There is no reason why we should not learn from US experience as regards labelling. Indeed, in many ways their labelling is better than ours, and I support that in spirit. I beg to move.
  5.30 p.m.
  Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: With permission, I wish to speak to an amendment which will be moved formally at a later stage by agreement. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for allowing me to group my amendment with his.
  Much as I support his amendment and everything that has been said about nutrition information, as important as the information itself is the presentation of the information. If I may borrow a catch phrase: presentation, presentation, presentation. That is why my amendment is extremely specific, and only in the case of a Grand Committee could such a specific amendment have been considered. It is specific because when the committee has its new powers I want to say, "Look, this is a jolly good way of doing it; this is how you should be looking at it, this is how you should be gauging the whole situation".
  In this country at present customers do not have any kind of uniform, consistent labelling such as exists in the United States. I am sure that is not in doubt. It is perhaps kindest to describe what we have in this country as a shambles. Other people might speak less kindly than I have done of it, but I believe that is something of an understatement. Many imported goods do not have—and are not required to have—any nutrition information whatever. In this country the requirements for nutrition labelling were supposed to have been reviewed in 1998; they were not, leaving a complete vacuum in some areas and total confusion in the rest.
  It is true and only fair to say that most supermarkets and food manufacturers do their best to provide nutrition information. The provision of it is very often inconsistent; there is no uniformity in the formula for presentation between one supermarket and another, between one manufacturer and another, between one product and another. It is often impossible, therefore, to make any relevant comparisons about the nutritional content of the product.
  Furthermore, one needs an honours degree in mental arithmetic to ascertain how the figures might relate to the portions that will constitute a serving. For example, for a bag of potato crisps weighing 140 grams the nutritional values are given per 100 grams, which
  CWH 30
  is not even a portion size. A jar of mayonnaise gives a calories count per 100 grams and the contents of the jar as 200 millilitres. No doubt many of your Lordships are far more numerate than I and could make this calculation in a minute, but I certainly could not.
  On this theme, I would respectfully address the Minister's attention to page 10 of the nutrition labelling study report of 1995 which was undertaken on behalf of her department and delivered to them. I will not go into detail and delay the Committee., but page 10 entirely upholds what I have just said about public perception of nutrition labelling in this country.
  On top of this British consumers are burdened with EU "E" numbers to warn allergy sufferers. The only problem is that there are many numbers displayed in great profusion, and whereas this is very good in principle it is ridiculous in practice because one would have to walk around with a glossary of "E" numbers in order to break the code!
  It is time to clear the jungle as far as British consumers are concerned. The new food standards committee could do this with a wave of a wand and at somebody else's expense! In 1993 the FDA in the United States brought out these new regulations that were the outcome of very widespread and very costly consultation and research, giving us a near perfect blueprint to guide our new agency. I have circulated some of those copies so I know that noble Lords have seen them. The great advantage of the United States' regulations is that they are simple, consistent and uniform in presentation. Serving sizes are realistic and consistent in same and similar food products and in products from differing sources, so that comparisons are easy to make. In addition—and this is an important point made by the noble Lord—to the clear statements of fact about nutrition there is a table showing percentage daily values as well as a clear list of ingredients. So any consumer will see, for example. 3 grams of fat and can immediately look down and see the recommended daily allowance of fat. That is all contained on the same label.
  I believe that this information, which is easy to assimilate, does not seek to humour the health food faddists, or the person who is always on a diet. As noble Lords will have observed, it is not provided for people like me either! It is required by consumers of all ages and for many reasons. The most important group has already been mentioned, those who perhaps have health risks in their family and want to be careful, mothers who are preparing menus for their family and want to be careful, as well as those who already have known health problems.
  On Second Reading the noble Baroness said,
  "The Government believe that the public have a right to clear and accurate information to help them make informed and sensible choices".—[Official Report, 30/7/99; col. 1786.]
  A little later in the same speech she said that the agency will take a key role in nutrition policy. Therefore I am confident of her support for this amendment.
  Finally I turn briefly to the EU ramifications in this matter. Some EU countries give no nutritional information whatsoever. Others give a little but it is

  CWH 31
  not given in any standard way. It is as confusing as our own; I would not say that ours is much better. Yet all food products sold in the United States have to meet their regulations. A number of these products come from Europe and beyond and they find no difficulty in providing the information in order to sell their produce in the United States. The CEG are at present examining QUID, which refers only to ingredient listing, and even they are quite a long way from reaching agreement on that, and they certainly do not like what the Community is proposing with regard to the rest of food labelling.
  It would be a sad situation if British consumers were to be relegated to second grade, to a standard far below that of the United States. I hope that the noble Baroness will not put forward as an argument against this the fact that it would not be acceptable to our partners, because I would say to her from personal experience that where there's a will there's a way. I know from experience that if you want something you can get it as far as our partners are concerned.
  Finally, whereas individual European governments may not want such labelling, I can assure the noble Baroness that all the European consumer groups would like to move towards it.
  In conclusion, I should like to thank the National Consumer Council for its support and in particular, Mike Rayner of the British Heart Foundation Health Promotion Research Group to which I hope before long I shall be able to add the support of the Minister.
  Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: I want to go back and say a few words of support to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on the amendments to which I put my name. Some of the arguments are the same as in Amendment No. 4 which I spoke to earlier and I do not think I need to repeat those.
  I was just thinking the other day that when I was young I was exhorted to "drinka pinta milk a day", and was also urged to "go to work on an egg". In my innocence then, I used to think that this was advice distilled from long and careful medical research. In fact, now that I am older and a bit wiser, and I fear a bit more cynical, I realise that this, then as now, is the special interest group speaking. It occurs to me that if we had had a food standards agency somewhat sooner with a brief for independent nutritional information, thousands of lives might have been saved by, to take one example, well-targeted advice to avoid added salt in our food, and the food industry might well have moved a bit quicker to change their ways in this respect.
  On the question of policies, which is Amendment No. 20, I should like to quote four short statements from the 1991 WHO Report on Chronic Diseases to which I referred earlier. The first quote is:
  "few governments realise that policies intended to guarantee an adequate food supply have introduced major threats to health".
  CWH 32
  The second quote is:
  "Policies initiated at a time when an adequate food supply meant an adequate supply of nutrients may be hard-pressed to adapt to the fact that nutrient excesses are now linked to the leading causes of death in virtually every country blessed with an abundant food supply".
  And, of nutrition programmes directed towards the control of chronic diseases, I quote:
  "By reducing chronic morbidity, such programmes will considerably relieve the financial strain on health care systems".
  The report goes on to urge governments to,
  "protect their populations through policies that make healthy food choices the easy choices".
  It is interesting that it should use the word "protect" there because, as the noble Lord, Lord Rea, pointed out earlier, that might not be a word that one would automatically think of when thinking of food promotion as opposed to safety. There are issues here, at the leading edge of nutritional research, which go way beyond the concept of a "balanced diet", and cast grave doubt on that other mantra which is beloved of many people, including the food industry, "There is no such thing as a bad food, only a bad diet". I have never believed in that one.
  Nutritional standards, to sum up, deserve the kind of profile and promotion which the new agency should be equipped to provide. We should not draw back from giving it this role because some people feel threatened by dietary advice; they do not have to heed it, as I have said before, and there are ways of getting research findings across which need not offend the most sensitive trencherman. The noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, asked me on the previous amendment whether I was wanting to, was it admonish? I was not quite sure of the flavour of that. Not heavy-handed, no, but there are ways of getting findings across. If the scientific advice is available it can be put forward in a straightforward way which can get to the public without saying, "You are naughty boys and girls". I think that should be simple enough to do.
  The final point is that I think in view of one of those quotations, the Government cannot afford to overlook something which could achieve real long-term reductions in health costs. I think these amendments deserve support for those reasons.
  5.45 p.m.
  The Countess of Mar: I should like to speak to Amendment No. 24 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes. Could I ask her please to exercise a little caution? I have already declared my interest in this; I am a small specialist cheesemaker—a very small specialist cheesemaker. To get the nutritional information that would be required on a label in the way that the noble Baroness mentioned would cost me several hundred pounds. I recently had the information for fat and protein in three cheeses which cost £200. Could I remind the Committee that

  CWH 33
  big trees from little acorns grow, and if small producers are discouraged at an early stage they may not help British industry.
  Lord Northbourne: I am concerned that the concept of labelling in this discussion seems to be becoming linked with the promotion of nutrition. Labelling is in fact extraordinarily important in the context of risk limitation, the most obvious case being the date on the label which shows when it is no longer safe to consume the product. I myself was involved for many years in washing, packing and selling salad products which are extremely vulnerable to deterioration. I am therefore very conscious of these problems. It seems that labelling has three functions: it has a function in relation to risk limitation; a function in the context of health promotion; and a function in relation to ensuring that consumers get satisfaction and what they want.
  The point made by the noble Countess, Lady Mar, is tremendously important. Why should people not eat little cheeses if they wish to? The label has to show—
  The Countess of Mar: It has to show that they are made from unpasteurised milk.
  Lord Northbourne: Yes, that they are made from unpasteurised milk, in such and such a place, at such and such a time and you take the risk! We must not be a nanny state.
  Baroness Byford: I rise to support these amendments. I have a slight hesitation about the comments of my noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes in that it is very specific. I should like to speak in a slightly broader way on the whole issue of labelling and nutrition, particularly the labelling side.
  I fear that we may hear—though I hope we do not—from the Minister that we cannot do it because it may conflict with what other countries do. I hope that is a route down which we do not go. At the end of the day, this Bill is about food safety. I believe I am right in saying that the biggest source of food poisoning is actually the home. It is therefore essential that the person who buys the product knows what is on the label and is able to identify clearly with it.
  Perhaps I may turn to one or two particular issues. I apologise for doing that at this stage but since we have gone into some detail on this amendment, I should like to do so. The consumer must be sure about the country of origin of the product that she buys. We have touched upon it now because we know in this country that we produce certain meat products—pork is a good example—to higher standards than those set by our colleagues on the Continent and probably further afield.
  It is important that the consumer should be able to identify the product very clearly. I have to declare an interest. We have pigs on the farm and although I am not a practising farmer, we do obviously still sell pigs. It has to be transparently clear that people know precisely what they are buying. I therefore support these amendments in broadbrush and again especially on the nutritional side.
  CWH 34
  Many of us have children or grandchildren and the first point that arises is whether they have a nut allergy. I give an example. My daughter was told that our grandchildren could take a break to school with them. They decided to take one of these muesli bars. Then a message came back saying that they must not do so because it was possible that there might be some nut in that particular bar. These are the kinds of things that are of concern to us.
  I realise the problem and the difficulty facing the Government. I come back to three points. First, I hope that the world-wide or European proposed labelling schemes will not stop us from doing something that we feel we should do. Secondly, the consumer needs to know and be very clear. Thirdly—wearing my own hat, so more on the farming side rather than the general food side—if a product has a British stamp on the back, it should have been grown, produced and finished in this country so that the purchaser knows that. It should not have been produced elsewhere and then come in having been raised to a lesser standard but, because it has been processed here, have a British mark on it. I apologise to noble Lords that I shall be returning to those points in greater detail later, but the amendments we are discussing at the moment are important.
  Lord Rea: In supporting the noble Lord, Lord Clement- Jones, perhaps I might amplify some of the points he made. The first is the stark contrast between the aims of the agency as set out in the White Paper and the lack of reference to some of those in the Bill. I read the comments of government Ministers in another place and listened to the reasons of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for not having nutrition on the face of the Bill. I am not convinced by any of the arguments that have been put forward.
  Chapter 5 of the food standards agency White Paper, A Force for Change, is headed,
  "The Agency's Role in Food Standards and Nutrition".
  It states,
  "Responses from consumer organisations, academics and public health organisations and professionals were overwhelmingly in favour of including nutrition in the remit of the Agency".
  It is worth spelling out the eight aspects of nutrition that were allocated to the agency—four more are shared with health and seven more are entirely in the remit of the Department of Health. The paper states that the agency will,
  "be responsible for monitoring and surveillance of the nutrient content of food and the nutrient content of the diet
  provide authoritative factual information about the nutrient content of individual foods and advice on the diet as a whole
  secure expert scientific advice on the relationship between diet, nutritional status and health to support the definition of a healthy diet and to inform policy from the. Committee on Medical Aspects of Food and Nutrition Policy (COMA)
  provide the definition of a balanced diet, based on COMA's scientific advice, for subsequent use in health education material produced by other bodies
  where appropriate, propose legislation relating to nutritional aspects of food, including labelling and claims. dietary supplements sold as food, fortified foods and functional foods
  provide practical guidance in relation to nutritional aspects of the food chain, including production and catering
  commission food and diet research appropriate to the functions of the Agency
  represent the UK in international negotiations on issues relating to nutritional aspects of food".
  There is no mention at all in the Bill of the word "nutrition". On reading the Bill, one might well think that it is almost entirely concerned with microbiological safety.
  Another problem is that, though my noble friend assured us at Second Reading and also outside the House that nutrition and food composition issues will be a major task of the agency, there remains the fear that the absence of the word "nutrition" on the face of the Bill will enable those who are opposed to the agency giving nutritional facts or advice, or advising the Government on nutritional policy—we all know who they are—to block those aspects of the food standards agency's work. That might be more of a danger with a government—dare I say?—of a different political persuasion.
  Another danger in the present over-emphasis on food safety is that appointments of candidates to the agency and the advisory committees will be and possibly are already being made up of those whose main expertise is in food safety rather than in the overall aspects of diet and public health. I have said enough. I do not know whether other noble Lords wish to contribute and I should like to hear the reply of the noble Baroness.
  The Earl of Selborne: I shall just say a few words specifically about labelling of country of origin, which is very relevant to this issue of the powers and responsibility of the agency.
  I have no doubt that we will be told that to label the country of origin, which differentiates between member states of the European Community, is not possible. However, we have to recognise that a requirement may be imposed on the agency to identify the country of origin if that country happens to be the United Kingdom, simply because Parliament, in its wisdom, has determined that standards should be different in this country from those in other member states. That is of course the position, be it for animal welfare or for food safety, in a number of cases.
  It follows therefore that the agency could well be required, if it is to fulfil its function properly, to protect or guard against risk; that is, if you accept those words. I do not think that we should have done so, but we will not go back on that. If there is a duty to protect against risk, and if Parliament thinks such standards as are enforced in the rest of Europe are not adequate, the only way the consumer can easily identify these higher standards which Parliament deems appropriate and necessary must be through identifying the country of origin. It will not be adequate to be told that, much as we wish to recognise the wisdom of our own legislation, we cannot in fact inform the consumer of the country of origin within the Community. That is simply unacceptable.
  CWH 36
  So often producers in this country find themselves disadvantaged in terms of competitive cost, and the consumer has the advantage. I should have reminded the Committee, as I did at Second Reading, that I am an apple grower and indeed a farmer, because this matter is certainly relevant to my business. I am told that I cannot stick a Union Jack label on each of my apples—but I do, as it happens! But that is not communautaire and it is certainly something that I find exasperating.
  I hope that the Minister will recognise that it is not enough simply to say that this matter goes beyond the remit of food protection. It is all about food protection. It is all about following up the precedents which Parliament has already set in these matters, ahead of other countries.
  Lord Montague of Oxford: I want to comment on the excellent spirit of the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, although I am a little cautious about the way in which they were presented. The noble Baroness's speech was eloquent but the terminology of this amendment does not quite capture what she has in mind. I would like to make it absolutely clear, however, that I support that spirit.
  Let me make an additional point. The noble Baroness made the point about the chemical formulae, which we are all supposed to understand so that we can be aware of what we should and should not buy. What I find so objectionable—and I know many other consumers do—is that these pieces of information are printed so small. It is all very well for the young, who can read so brilliantly, but with no disrespect to the noble Baroness certainly I find that it is just a little difficult when you have a pair of glasses which are virtually magnifying glasses. There seems to be plenty of space for wonderful stories, which are misleading, and wonderful illustrations, but nothing that we really need. There is insufficient clarity as regards what we really need to know.
  Let me make one cautionary noise about country of origin. In terms of food and being alert to the country of origin, for the reasons we have heard that information is very appropriate. But people use country of origin information for all sorts of other purposes. There are political uses—you cannot buy anything from Peru, or this country or that country—and I am very nervous about boycotts and what might happen if we start saying that every specific country has to be identified.
  Lord Desai: Like the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, I wish that we had separated the matters of labelling and nutrition. I am sorry to continue to fight this lost battle. The previous time I discussed it, I thought I was speaking on the Government's side, and my noble friend undermined me.
  Let me try once again. The tremendous fear that consumers have about eating has arisen more from microbiological problems than from nutritional problems. Nutritional labelling is a good thing and I do not want to deny that; it is the positive side of eating. But people are worried that what they eat might

  CWH 37
  poison or kill them. Accurate labelling of the physical contents is extremely important. It is what one might call the characteristics, like the fat content and so on.
  For example, if a product contains pork extract, a Moslem might want to know that. We have not discussed that aspect of eating. However, some people may not eat certain foods not because of health but because of strong religious beliefs, and therefore would much rather know whether the food contains beef extract, pork extract, egg or whatever it may be. Many vegetarians, for example, may be very upset by such things, so it is much more important that the physical details are known.
  Other aspects are desirable, but I feel strongly that if the agency does not concentrate on the core task of reassuring consumers about microbiological risks, even though it may do fantastic things in other directions; if it does not prevent the next food panic, it will have failed.
  6 p.m.
  Lord Rea: Perhaps I might briefly answer my noble friend Lord Desai. Of course, he is right. The public are primarily afraid of getting food poisoning, but the deaths caused by faulty diet far outweigh the deaths caused by food poisoning. Food poisoning is a nuisance. There may be a million cases a year—we do not know as most of them are not reported—but they are mostly self-limiting. People often know not what they eat, and often it will bring them to an early grave if they continue to eat as they do. I agree that we cannot tell people what to eat. But the agency can provide information which might be supplied to it by others to help convince people to eat a diet which will make them feel a lot better; be less of a burden on the health service; and perhaps allow them to live a little longer. However, that is not the important point because they should be healthy while they are alive.
  Baroness Hayman: Combining discussion about nutrition and labelling into one portmanteau debate has led us down some fascinating byways, but it presents something of a challenge in summing up and responding to the amendments. I shall try and do so, first, by dealing with the issue of nutrition. I say at the outset that I understand the strength of feeling reflected in this debate that there should not be any retreat—if I can put it that way—from the principles set out in the White Paper that we should encompass nutrition within the objectives of the agency. My noble friend Lord Rea suggested that I said it outside the House, but perhaps I can say within the confines of this Committee that the Government are fully committed to the agency having a major role in nutrition and in diet; in it being a key part of its remit for protecting public health.
  The agency will be a key player in helping the Government to deliver on their commitments to public health in the White Paper, Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation, in partnership with the Department of Health. He is right to point out that the health consequences of poor nutrition in general go far wider and affect far more people than the health consequences of food
  CWH 38
  poisoning, acute and serious though those may be for the small number of individuals affected severely, though we know that quite a large number of individuals are affected overall each year.
  The White Paper on public health stated that the agency would,
  "provide independent and authoritative advice to the public on all food safety and standards issues as well as on a balanced diet and on the nutritional value of food to help people make informed decisions about what they eat".
  We are fully committed to the agency having that role. I have to repeat what we have said many times before. We have no doubt that the agency's main objective in Clause 1 encompasses nutrition. The first part of the clause states:
  "The main objective … is to protect public health from risks which may arise in connection with the consumption of food".
  There is absolutely no doubt that nutrition policy is a matter of protecting public health.
  The second part of the clause states:
  "and otherwise to protect the interests of consumers in relation to food"
  It is mainly concerned with food standards matters such as food labelling, claims, composition, authenticity, which again all include nutritional aspects. Taken as a whole, the objective sets out a general statement of what the agency is there to do, and that includes nutrition.
  However, the general approach in the drafting of the Bill is to define the agency's general functions and not to specify every individual subject area in detail. If we took a prescriptive approach in relation to nutrition, we would need to spell out other subject areas in equal detail. Then we would have the danger that we have discussed on other pieces of legislation in other Committees of your Lordships' House that we might end up with an exclusive list and thus remove the agency's ability to be flexible. We would almost certainly leave out something important which might arise in the future.
  I am grateful to my noble friend for spelling out what the White Paper said the agency would he responsible for in terms of nutrition. He saved me doing exactly the same thing. I can certainly assure him that there is no stark contrast with the White Paper here. We are not resiling in any way from the areas where we said in the White Paper the food standards agency would be active in nutrition; nor from the areas where it would work in close co-operation with the Department of Health whose overall health promotion responsibilities we have already discussed today. What we are suggesting is simply that in the legislative drafting this is covered quite clearly in Clause 1 and it is not necessary to spell it out.
  Another point made in the course of the debate was that there might be within the agency only expertise on issues of microbiological safety rather than expertise on nutrition matters. It may be reassuring for the Committee if I make clear that the nutrition unit of the joint food safety and standards group will form part of the agency and continue to work closely with other departments and bodies such as health promotion

  CWH 39
  bodies with related responsibilities. In fact, no expertise in nutrition matters will remain with MAFF: they will transfer over to the agency and clearly they will there fulfil their responsibilities in this important area.
  The agency will be a major player on matters of nutrition. However, I feel from the debate that we had at Second Reading and today that while it is not necessary to include this on the face of the Bill, I recognise that there is concern—which I do not believe is justified but it was expressed very clearly by the mover of the amendment—that in some way the absence of the word suggests that this area was not covered. I hope that what I have said today has been explicit as to how we see this unfolding and that there will be real and important roles for the agency in matters of nutrition.
  There may possibly be some opportunities for spelling that out in other documentation that goes with the Bill. Perhaps the Committee would give me a little time to think of ways in which that might be achieved in order to give some reassurance while not running into some of the dangers involved in listing areas unnecessarily on the face of the Bill when they have been included in the language of the Bill and when the Government's intention has been made crystal clear. Perhaps I may go away and think about ways in which we can do that and comment on it at the Report stage. That might be of some assistance to the Committee.
  I want to move on to the issue of labelling, which was encompassed in some of the earlier amendments and which we believe is clearly covered in Clause 1. We have a specific amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes. It is undoubtedly true that she had the spirit of the meeting with her when she proposed this measure because all of us as consumers recognised some of the difficulties that she spelt out with current labelling forms. I demurred slightly only on the subject of the size of the print because I had to put on my "old lady" glasses in order to read the leaflet she gave me which explained what the labelling would mean!
  Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: I apologise. The actual leaflet was much bigger in size; I had to reduce it to get a colour photocopy!
  Baroness Hayman: It just shows some of the difficulties of language. Indeed, the noble Countess described herself as a "small cheesemaker". I am not sure that all the cheeses were especially small; the phrase may well refer to the volume of production rather than to a small cheese that was being eaten. We have to be so careful with language.
  I take the point made by several Members of the Committee that there are different but equally valid reasons for the need to have clear, comprehensible labelling on food. Some of that labelling will be much aligned to nutritional areas and the ability of people to make sensible choices about a balanced diet, as was discussed earlier. For some, as my noble friend Lord Desai remarked, the labelling may assist religious and
  CWH 40
  cultural preferences or the ethical considerations which people have when choosing food. For some, as was clearly spelt out, labelling can be a matter of life and death when allergies are involved. It is important that labelling is both comprehensible and permits an informed choice.
  My problem with this particular amendment is that the scope of this clause already covers matters such as nutritional labelling. Citing specific examples in this way probably casts doubts in judicial minds on the generality of the rest of the clause. I should like to make clear that the agency will be able to consider information from any source in developing its own advice and recommendations and that could include examining the provisions made in other countries. However, it would be unwise to place on the face of the Bill a specific link with the regulations of another country, although the example which the noble Baroness put forward—especially if it were blown up to its proper size!—seems on first reading to be both clear and useful.
  Times change, however, and the legislation that is the best and the world leader today may not be the best to follow in the future. It would not be sensible to be tied down in primary legislation to something that may quickly become irrelevant.
  It is important to recognise, not in the sense of saying this is a counsel of despair and we can do nothing, but because it is the reality of the situation, that information on the nutrition panel of the label on food products is subject to EU rules. That does not mean that we should not take action and that we should not lead in pressing for those rules and regulations to be better. The Government are pressing for changes which will make the information more widely available and more user friendly, and the changes that we would like to see indeed include some of the features of the system that are used in the United States.
  In addition, controls on claims must be sufficient to prevent misleading claims about the health benefits of individual products. These controls will need to apply to both imported and home-produced foods, and the agency will take on responsibility for participating in international discussions with a view to agreeing common rules.
  The agency will also wish to consider whether the current regime of legislation and government advice, complemented by self-regulatory initiatives, offers sufficient protection to consumers. As well as tackling the rules and advice to ensure that they need to clear consistent and comprehensive labelling, the agency will want to take steps to ensure that consumers can use them effectively. That will include providing advice for consumers in the form of leaflets as well as contributing to health education initiatives especially in schools.
  The leaflet which Members of the Committee will have seen gives useful information on nutritional labelling and health claims for just that kind of purpose. Indeed the current range of MAFF's food sense booklets attempts to achieve the same objective

  CWH 41
  and the agency will wish to consider this and other ways of helping consumers who wish to choose a healthy diet.
  It is important to recognise that we are working in an EU context in terms of the regulations but that is not to say that is a reason for suggesting that it is impossible to make progress. I believe we can make progress. We have been leading the way in specific areas and pushing the European Commission in areas like the labelling of GMs, in additives and in animal feeds, and there are ways in which we can make progress within the framework of the EU food labelling directive. I have to say, however, that it is not possible for the food standards agency simply at the wave of a wand, as the noble Baroness suggested, to follow the US regulation rather than work within the framework of EU labelling rules.
  Perhaps I may say a word or two on the issue of country of origin labelling because I understand the strength of feeling on that issue, although I believe I am right in saying to the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, that he is perfectly entitled voluntarily to label his apples as "English" if he so wishes. It is about receiving the financial support so to do, but he is not on the wrong side of the law if he is doing this himself and by choice. Voluntary labelling on the place of origin is of course allowed, but it must comply with legislation outlawing misleading information.
  Some of the main concerns in the current regime are that the EC food labelling directive provides a place of origin and information need only be given on food labels where failure to give it might mislead the consumer to a material degree as to the true origin of the food.
  There have been concerns, particularly in the pig industry, in terms of processing and the labelling that has gone on. We believe that we can take action both in terms of official guidance and by strong enforcement action to discourage misleading practices in this area. We are currently strengthening the MAFF guidance notes. We believe that this is exactly the kind of area on which the agency will be able to lead in the future.
  I hope that what I have said in terms both of the importance of nutrition and the role that the agency will have both in that area and in developing policy on labelling with very much the same objectives as those who supported the noble Baroness in her amendment will mean that those who move the amendments will be willing to withdraw them.
  6.15 p.m.
  Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: I did not move my amendment because it does not arise until later.
  Lord Clement-Jones: This has been a mouth-watering debate with all this talk of cheese and apples and I am sure the supper hour will come along very shortly. Also I thank noble Lords for their support for these amendments, which we very much welcome, and for their cogent comments on them.
  I introduced the subject of the amendments in a fairly dry fashion purely in terms of the responsibilities of the agency but, clearly, there are ramifications and
  CWH 42
  the Minister replied to a number of them in terms of the way in which the agency exercises its powers. It is certainly no part of our view that the agency should have a heavy-handed way of acting, whether over nutritional advice, labelling or whatever.
  On the other hand, the importance of those areas cannot be denied and one only has to look at an example such as that given by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, on nut allergies in terms of labelling to recognise that. I too have a young son and that sort of case sends shivers down the spine if we feel that our system of labelling is not currently adequate.
  We thought about dividing the amendment into two but the points go hand in hand. They are seen as being very much together by consumer organisations who put their weight behind these amendments and I welcome their support in so doing. To a large extent, this issue is not about drafting. Much of it is about signposting. It is about signalling to the public—to the consumer in particular—that nutrition and labelling are a vital part of the agency's role.
  I take what the Minister had to say about not resiling from the White Paper and I welcome that. One should perhaps put it another way and the Minister could clarify that by saying that the duties set out in the White Paper to be carried out by the agency when it is formed will be those relative to nutrition. That positive statement of clarification would be helpful.
  However, I do not wish to enter into a drafting discussion, because to argue with Ministers about drafting is extremely unwise. We are always met with either the argument that this is a list and cannot be included, or that the concept we wish to include in a Bill is already included in the wording. So we can never win either way!
  I prefer to take up the Minister's helpful offer to consider other documentation surrounding the Bill and perhaps, whether outside or inside this Committee, we could have a further discussion as to precisely what that documentation is; whether or not consumer organisations can be involved and what kind of signalling and signposting we could give to show that the agency will have strong powers in that regard. We are all trying to achieve a degree of unanimity about how the agency should go forward. We are all trying to achieve an effective agency that will have consumer confidence. That is what we are concerned about and not necessarily the precise drafting of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3 [Appointment of chief executive and directors]:
  [Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
  On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
  The Earl of Selborne: Perhaps I may take this opportunity to ask the Minister for an assurance that

  CWH 43
  the specific requirement to appoint directors for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland does not in any way suggest that these directors should have precedence or particular weighting within the agency. Under paragraph 8 of Schedule 1 the agency is allowed to,
  "appoint such staff as it may determine".
  If the agency determines to appoint directors for, say, regions of England, which might be sensible, or a finance director, which I should have thought fairly important, these directors should each report to the chief executive. There should be no implication that because these directors are statutory—in other words they are provided for on the face of the Bill—that should in any way give them undue weighting compared with the other directors. I am seeking an assurance from the Minister that just because we deem it appropriate to have under statute directors for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, that would not in any way diminish the role or the importance of the directors were they appointed for regions of England.
  Baroness Hayman: I can give the noble Lord that assurance. The directors for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will report to the chief executive. They will not take precedence over others reporting to the chief executive—he gave examples of finance which I am sure would be there—but they will obviously have a particular importance in consideration of issues that are of particular local relevance. However, in terms of precedence over other directors, they will all be answerable to the chief executive.
  Clause 3 agreed to.
  Clause 4 [Annual and other reports]:
  Baroness Byford Baroness Byford movement Amendment No. 13:
  Page 2, line 36, leave out ("as soon as possible after") and insert ("within 3 months or )
  The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 13 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 14. I start by once again thanking the Minister for the meeting last night. For the information of those who were not there, the noble Baroness kindly confirmed that the financial year for the agency will run, as indeed normal financial years run, from April to April rather than from any other time. I needed to have that clarified because it has implications with regard to my amendment.
  We agree that the food standards agency should report on its work every year. Paragraph 4 of Schedule 4 deals with the production of consolidated accounts. We on this side of the Committee agree that such financial stringency is necessary. However, we do not agree that these two things should be separate. The Government's Better Regulation Taskforce has prescribed both transparency and accountability among its five principles for measuring regulation. A system which separates report and accounts is not in our view even paying lip service to either principle.
  The anticipated annual turnover of the agency as currently envisaged is sufficient to put it on par with larger companies in the UK, for which there is the
  CWH 44
  series of Companies Acts starting in 1948. These Acts lay down the requirements which have culminated in the production of weighty worded well-presented documents, to which shareholders are now accustomed. One of the most relevant aspects of these worthy publications is the cheerful assured comments of the chairman, the earnest and more confiding prose of the chief executive, and a cautious commentary from the financial director which can be compared instantly with the turnover, fixed and other tangible assets, profits and provisions.
  There are among my correspondents those who are concerned that the food standards agency may end up, particularly through its levying powers, about which I am sure we shall talk at greater length later, as a self-financing regulatory authority. A combined report and accounts will enable both Houses to ensure that transparency and accountability do not allow a creeping nationalisation of inspection and enforcement in the food production industry. Those are my thoughts in moving the amendment.
  6.30 p.m.
  Baroness Hayman: If I can deal with the two issues raised, I hope that the noble Baroness will have been reassured by my giving the details of the financial year to which the agency will work. It is our intention to create an agency which operates at arm's length from Ministers and yet is properly accountable to Parliament and, where appropriate, to the devolved authority. The formal requirement to report to Parliament is an important part of this and of fostering a culture of openness.
  The agency will report in the first instance to Parliament and must do so, according to the Bill, as soon as possible after the end of each financial year. We do not believe that there is any scope for foot dragging and that report must be made as soon as possible. Normal best practice in this area would suggest that that should be done before the Summer Recess. That is the sort of timing that the noble Baroness will have in mind.
  Much of the information contained in the report will in fact be linked to the financial year, discussing, as it will, the resources available to meet performance targets. It would make sense to publish the report as soon as possible after the end of the financial year, when the information it contains has been finalised, rather than imposing an artificial deadline and risking publication of a report containing incomplete or provisional information. We believe that it might in certain circumstances be better to wait a little to see the true picture, rather than rush to print to meet an artificial deadline of three months and later have to present additional or revised information. This is not in any sense an excuse, however, for not reporting as soon as possible—that will be a requirement of the Bill, and it is certainly one that we would expect the agency to take seriously.
  The report covered in this clause is not intended to deal with the agency's accounts—for reasons I will come to in a moment—in the formal sense that they are

  CWH 45
  covered in Schedule 4 to the Bill. However—I hope this will reassure the noble Baroness—it will of course have to address the resources available to the agency if it is to have any meaningful discussion of its activities in relation to its performance target.
  We envisage that the agency's report—as a non-ministerial government department—will contain financial information very much on the model of current departmental reports. I hope the noble Baroness feels that those reports have sufficient detail to check aspirations and claims against resource allocation. However, this information will not necessarily be in the same form as the appropriation accounts which are dealt with later in the Bill.
  As a government department the agency will provide annual accounts to Parliament under existing legislation. It will also provide accounts to devolved legislatures, identifying expenditure and receipts in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland separately. These matters are dealt with in Clause 39 (financial provisions) and, more particularly, in Schedule 4 (accounts and audit), which gives details of the accounts required. I appreciate and share the concern that Parliament should be kept properly informed of the financial affairs of government departments. Those are covered by the Bill as it is drafted. There will be a great deal of very detailed financial information laid before Parliament in terms of the separate sets of accounts which relate to the separate devolved legislatures and to the UK Parliament.
  That information will be very detailed and presented in a particular form because of the issue of devolution but that is not to say that there will thereby be no financial information in the annual report. We would consider that in order to be meaningful it would need to have a degree of financial information which brought those accounts together in a transparent and comprehensible way.
  Baroness Byford: I am very grateful to the Minister. When I put the amendment down we had not had the meeting last night. I am much reassured as regards the timing of the production of these two items.
  It I can take the report first, from my understanding of what the Minister has said to us that will come to us before Parliament rises in the summer.
  Baroness Hayman: That would be the intention.
  Baroness Byford: I gave the Minister a chance because clearly that is very important. What worries me immensely is exactly the problem that we had in starting the Bill; the fact that we rise at the end of July. Normally, we do not come back until the beginning of October and sometimes things get lost. Those of us who take a keen interest in them I am sure would not lose them anyway, but they do tend to get lost. In tabling the amendment, I am trying to encourage the Minister on behalf of the department to make sure that we have the reports before the Summer Recess.
  I move on to the second part. The accounts are of extreme interest to all of us who are following the Bill, not only because some of the money will be coming
  CWH 46
  from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as laid down in the Bill—we shall be discussing that later—but, more importantly, because a big portion of the work that is coming into the food standards agency will come from the Meat Hygiene Service. That at the moment is done by means of a levy and can be raised or not raised—usually raised and raised again. Indeed, the Government have responded to the difficulties faced by people who are governed by the Meat Hygiene Service earlier this year and have raised charges. The problem has not gone away; all that the Government have done is to defer those charges.
  Therefore, I want the accounts to be available quickly and clearly so that all of us know exactly where this money is coming from and where it is going. I am still not clear from the Minister's response exactly whether they will be included in the accounts, or whether they will be produced at the same time as the report, or whether the two are coming at different stages.
  If I give way, perhaps the Minister will clarify that before I go any further.
  Baroness Hayman: On the issue of whether we formulate the legislation in terms of a specific time limit or in terms of "as soon as possible", we are dealing with an issue of relative risk here. The noble Baroness rightly highlights the risk. The normal best practice—and it is normally followed—that accounts and an annual report are published before the House rise for the Summer Recess, although not phrased in those terms, could be circumvented because it is not a legislative requirement.
  I suggested that we should also be aware of the risk that, if an arbitrary time limit were included, one may end up publishing an annual report which does not contain all the financial information; and just for the sake of two or three days, or a week.
  It is therefore an issue of risk. The noble Baroness asks me to give an assurance that this particular annual report is published as soon as possible. I have to give that assurance on behalf of my noble friend because by the time the financial year starts the Secretary of State for Health will have overall accountability for the agency. Perhaps I may reassure her that the accounts will be given equally as soon as possible at the end of the financial year, so these very technical accounts dealing with the different streams of income that come from the devolved legislatures will be working to the same time frame as the annual report with its financial information. I should just make clear that the Meat Hygiene Service is not funded by a levy. It is funded by charges to cover the costs of inspection. That is an important distinction to make in this particular area, especially since the issue of levy and this specific agency has been of some concern and the subject of major change during the discussion on this Bill.
  Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister for her response. I apologise for the use of the word "levy". She is quite right that I should have used the expression "charge" because indeed it is a charge. If I were being mischievous, I would be slightly concerned that the

  CWH 47
  agency did not feel that it could produce reports within three months. However, I accept what the Minister said and hope that it will work towards doing so.
  It is important that people should be able to see what the agency is doing because their hopes have been built up so much as to what this agency will come up with. Certainly, the financing of the agency is of concern to quite a few producers who will fall within its remit. I thank the noble Baroness for that—though I still have reservations—and would like to be able to say that she accepted my amendment. However, since she has not done so, I shall certainly read the debate tomorrow in Hansard and perhaps come back to it at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
  Clause 4 agreed to.
  Clause 5 [Advisory committees]:
  Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 15:
  Page 2, line 43, after ("Ireland") insert ("and an advisory committee for England")
  The noble Baroness said: We come now to an important part of our discussions on the Bill. While we understand and agree that the food standards agency should have a role overarching the whole of the United Kingdom, we cannot accept that it can be its own adviser on all matters English. I suspect that my noble friend has already highlighted one or two aspects of devolution that may well be involved.
  It will undoubtedly be true that several of the 12 members of the agency will be well versed in issues affecting England and may therefore be expected to carry that understanding into all agency deliberations. However, if the membership of the agency reflects the composition of the Government, it may well be that there are an equal number of members well versed on issues affecting Scotland. There are to be separate advisory committees for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland but, as all your Lordships know, not for England. The Government have stated:
  "It is clear from the job description that the chief public face of the agency is … the chair of the agency".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee B: 1/7/99; col. 94.]
  They go on to say,
  "and to have operational directors in the territories with a link to the legislative bodies is crucial because the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament will deal with legislation"—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee B: 1/7/99; col. 95.]
  Later they state:
  "That is not to say, however, that different policies could not be imposed on specific areas … [The advisory committee] will act as a channel of advice for the agency for the problems of various parts of the UK."—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee B: 6/7/99: col. 114.]
  The sum total of those statements seems to be an acknowledgement that different parts of the country do and will have different problems that will be met differently and that the chairman of the agency—the "chief public face" of the agency—cannot act in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It
  CWH 48
  then seems illogical, especially in the face of the Government's own statements, not to have at least a separate advisory body for England.
  The alternative would be to have no advisory bodies and instead to rely upon various statutory bodies, such as SEAC, Novel Foods and Processes, Medical Aspects of Food and Nutrition, to keep the agency abreast of regional variations. However, the Minister rebuffed such an idea so I considered not floating it seriously again. Those are my thoughts in moving the amendment. I ask the Government to consider having an advisory body for England. Amendments Nos. 105 and 108 are consequential to these amendments. I beg to move.
  6.45 p.m.
  Viscount Thurso: About a year ago, having sat for hours and hours through proceedings on the Scotland Bill, I thought that one of the defects of our approach to devolution was that we happily devolved Scotland, with which I was totally in favour, partly devolved Wales, with which I was partially in favour, and tried to do something for Ireland, but did nothing at all for England. It is absolutely right if you are a Home Ruler as I am that England should be treated equally with Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. In broad terms I have great sympathy with the noble Baroness's amendment and will be interested to hear how the Government respond.
  Baroness Wilcox: Perhaps I may add a few words in support of the amendment. I had not intended so to do, but it suddenly dawned on me that as a free-born Englishwoman I do occasionally like to think that things in my area will be taken into consideration. It would be awfully nice if we thought this could come about and that we could have a committee for England. Will it really be possible? Will this be a first?
  Baroness Hayman: The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, referred to the hours of debate on issues of devolution. That struck a warning note to me not to go too deeply in this particular area into the broad issues about devolution and the respective needs of the different areas of the United Kingdom. However, I have to say in my simplistic way that it was not an under-representation of English interests on UK bodies that was the motivation for the movement to have legislatures in Scotland and in Wales.
  On the issue of food safety the devolved authorities recognise that it is an issue which does not easily respect internal borders. All are agreed that it makes sense for the agency to be a United Kingdom body which can provide a common authoritative source of advice on food safety matters across the United Kingdom, and so it is being established as a single UK body. The agency will, however, have to work not only with the UK Government but with the devolved authorities, including the Scottish Executive and Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales, and the Northern Ireland Assembly when it takes its powers. When the new All-Ireland Cross-Border Safety Promotion Board has been set up, it will work with that too.

  CWH 49
  The Bill therefore makes provisions which take account of the particular needs of the devolved parts of the United Kingdom, such as providing a role in relation to appointments, which we discussed earlier, for directors for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and for advisory committees to advise on matters affecting the devolved areas. We believe that these provisions are necessary and help glue the agency together as an effective UK body, but one which respects the differences.
  It is not, I believe, an area in which we have to say that sauce for the goose is necessarily sauce for the UK gander. We are not convinced of the need for a permanent committee to serve the whole of England. England will fall under the authority of UK Ministers and will not need an advisory link to the UK agency in the same way as those provided to the devolved areas. As the noble Baroness has pointed out, we do not have a separate parliament for England which would justify a separate advisory structure for England. The committees in Scotland, in Wales and in Northern Ireland will form links with the legislatures there, and the link with this Parliament will be the agency itself.
  This is not a situation that we have envisaged as being incapable of change. Provision is in any case already made for a committee to be established for England or parts of England if the need were to arise. If it does—and it may arise particularly in the context of devolution to the English regions or in the context of a special concern to England—the UK Ministers will be able to use these powers after consulting the agency.
  At the moment we do not feel it is necessary to set up an English advisory committee. We believe that the needs will be well covered by the UK structure and by the relationship of the UK government with the agency itself. As I say, we are not being so closed-minded as to suggest that in the development of constitutional areas over time it would be impossible to envisage an advisory committee or committees for specific regions of England. There is sufficient provision in the Bill to make such arrangements were they considered to be necessary. On that basis I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
  Baroness Byford: My goodness, I am encouraged for the first time today! I well appreciate that the agency will be governed by a single UK body, but I do not understand— and I will be happy to sit down and give the Minister another chance to respond—why we cannot have an advisory body for England. It does not seem logical to argue on the three fronts, particularly if the Minister then quite rightly says that the issue may well have regional implications. If regional implications arise we would benefit hugely by having an advisory body to act as a sifting house before it refers back to the main body. Would the noble Baroness like me to give way?
  The Countess of Mar: Perhaps I may point out that Oftel is the English national advisory committee on telecommunications.
  Baroness Hayman: Oftel is not a non-ministerial government department, as far as I know, so I am not
  CWH 50
  sure that the precedent is completely there. These are issues with which we have to wrestle. I can think of closer parallels in the professional self-regulatory bodies for nursing in terms of issues that are debatable and need to be considered. I have to say, however, that the key difference—this is the point I was trying to make to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford—is the role that these advisory bodies will have in terms of their interaction with the devolved legislatures. There are devolved legislatures in Scotland and Wales and hopefully in Northern Ireland—
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Yes, there are devolved legislatures. However, in Scotland, although not in Wales, there is an executive. There is a health Minister in Scotland whose name escapes me at the moment, which shows the impact—
  Noble Lords: Oh!
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: There is a health Minister in Scotland who must be answerable to the Scottish Parliament so there is no difference as between Scotland and England with regard to answerability. Wales is different as it does not have an executive and it does not have Ministers, but in Scotland there are Ministers. Primary legislative power rests with the Scottish Parliament. It seems to me that the Scottish Parliament is in exactly the same position vis-à-vis Scotland as this Parliament is vis-à-vis England. If the agency is answerable to this Parliament via Ministers, I cannot for the life of me understand why the agency cannot also be answerable to the Scottish Parliament via Ministers of the Scottish Parliament. It seems to me that we have got ourselves into a dreadful tangle because of the way the Government have dealt with devolution around the country.
  Baroness Hayman: The noble Lord should perhaps consider the possibility that the fact that he cannot remember Susan Deacon's name is a reflection not on her impact but his memory! That aside, I have to say that the consultation on the White Paper was on the basis of committees for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but not for England. The suggestions in the White Paper were widely supported. It is very easy to show some of the inconsistencies, if you like to characterise them as such, in the way in which we explore this constitutional settlement and the way in which we make the appropriate links with the devolved legislatures.
  I have made it clear that it is our belief at the moment that it is not necessary to set up an advisory committee for England. This will be covered adequately by the UK body relating to the UK Government. However, we have gone further to recognise some of the issues involved, by providing powers to set up such an English committee, or it might well be, as I said earlier, that if we are at the stage of further devolving power to regions of England. then the regions might be much more sensible in terms of

  CWH 51
  population and geography as areas for committees to relate to, than the whole of England, which is a very diverse and populous area for a single committee.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. We can perhaps explore this point. Can the noble Baroness try to give one example where it might be decided that different food standards should apply in one part of England as opposed to another part of England, that might require separate advisory committees? For the life of me, I cannot think of any.
  Baroness Hayman: Greentop milk.
  Baroness Byford: I do not know whether the noble Baroness has finished. Is greentop milk allowed in Scotland?
  The Countess of Mar: No! It is not allowed in Scotland.
  Baroness Byford: I beg the noble Countess's pardon, but it is here.
  Baroness Hayman: Since the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, did not like that answer, perhaps I could give him the answer about E.coli. E.coli is far more prevalent in Scotland than it is in other parts of the United Kingdom, and it therefore might be absolutely sensible for a Scottish committee to give advice on issues relating to E.coli.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I obviously did not phrase my question properly. I was actually talking in the context of different committees in regions of England. I asked whether the noble Baroness could give me an example of where there might be different food regulations in one region of England from the other regions of England. I am afraid that is the logic in what she is telling us about the justification for having regional advisory committees.
  The Earl of Selborne: While the Minister is thinking about that, because she deserves time to reflect on this, there will clearly be some difficulty in determining what are the regional food safety factors within England. To say "greentop milk" is not an answer: greentop milk is available throughout all the regions of England.
  The point I was making earlier about the directors applies also to these advisory committees. It is the fact of the impact that will be created on the agency itself by an imbalance in the structure. I was very grateful to the Minister for her assurance that the directors, who might be representing regions or England, will not in any way be downgraded in importance or influence or impact, compared with the directors who will be statutory directors for England, Scotland and Wales.
  We come now to the issue of the advisory committees, which is what Clause 5(1) and 5(2) address and what the Minister has been asked to address. I understand that statutory advisory committees are required to advise not just the executive in Scotland
  CWH 52
  and Wales but also the agency. However, if I am wrong about that, please correct me. If there are then three advisory committees for three nations of the United Kingdom but not for the fourth, it seems to suggest that there might be an imbalance of advice. In other words, nothing would be lost by acknowledging at an early stage that, in order to achieve a balance throughout the United Kingdom, it might be sensible to recognise, if only to see that there is an even hand, that advisory committees for England—or an advisory committee if we agree there are unlikely to be regional differences—should be set up sooner rather than later.
  Clause 5(2) does not make clear what the procedure would be for the Secretary of State suddenly determining that perhaps a regional advisory committee for England was necessary after all. Is this to come from the English by some constituency representations if they will not have an advisory committee to make these representations? How will it manifest this need? Will it come from the agency itself? I believe that it would be well for the Minister to think carefully about the case for a regional variation within England. If there is not any obvious case for having regional differences within England, at least she should address the issue of why the agency will be influenced by three advisory committees but there will be no need for the fourth.
  7 p.m.
  Lord Rotherwick: There is an imbalance here. Surely, an English advisory committee is the most important because as I understand it the agency can have a minimum of 10 or 14 people. In either cases, two will be the chairman and deputy chairman and in the lesser case there will be four from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and four from England. So here we have less than a tenth of the population of the UK being represented by half the body. At the best, you will have four from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and six from England. Therefore, we already have a very bad imbalance built into the agency itself.
  Baroness Hayman: It is clear from what has been said that there is concern that English interests should not be neglected here. However, I have to say once again, that we must recognise the reality of the situation; that the main headquarters and the vast majority of the staff of the agency will be based in England, as will all its specialist advisory committees. I take the point that has been made. We recognise that the Bill ought to contain provisions for the possibility of creating a committee, or committees, on a regional basis were they to be considered necessary in the future. Perhaps, as the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, suggested, I could write to him on the mechanism by which the Bill provides for that.
  As regards the question on which the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, was trying to press—the possibility of the need for regional rather than national advice in England—it would be a matter not necessarily of regulation, which is how he phrased his question, but perhaps a difference in advice. For example, in a major dairying area of England, advice

  CWH 53
  on food safety on the farm might be different from that was given in an arable area. The advice might reflect a pattern of particular prevalence of food-borne disease in one area, as indeed did the Scottish example of E.coli
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The argument the Minister used against me earlier today when I suggested that there should be a fish advisory committee was that we did not want such sectionalising of the advice. Now she is saying that one of the advantages of a regional system in England would be that there could be a regional committee from the dairy industry which could more or less give advice on dairy, and there would be a regional committee on beef.
  The Countess of Mar: No.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I must be getting hard of hearing because I am pretty certain that is what the noble Baroness was saying.
  Baroness Hayman: The noble Lord misunderstood me. Part of the problem is the drafting of this clause which brings together all the advisory committees under one heading. We are dealing here, as the noble Lord well knows, with the advisory committees for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—those that are geographically based. I was asked why it might be that if we were to look at the English context geographical advice might be more suitable on a regional basis rather than on an English basis overall. My answer, and the example I was seeking to give, was that one region of England might have specific problems with a particular food disease or might have specific issues because of the nature of agriculture in that region that meant that regional advice was useful, not that we would be setting up the equivalent of a fisheries advisory committee. I was trying to give an example of the rationale that might exist for separate regional advice rather than national advice for England, which I thought was the question on which the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, was pressing me.
  Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister for her continued explanation. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this important mini-debate on the question of an advisory committee for England. It is a matter to which we shall wish to return. I hope that between now and Report the Minister will give further thought to it to see whether we can come up with some greater closeness than where we stand at the moment. It seems ridiculous that the Bill recognises and sets up powers to enable an advisory body for England to be set up, but does not do it. It already recognises that there probably is a problem, but it has not done it. That is not very good English. I shall read with interest what the Minister has said and will probably come back to this issue on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 16 to 18 not moved.]
  Clause 5 agreed to.
  Clause 6 [Development of food policy and provision of advice, etc. to public authorities]:
  Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 19:
  Page 3, line 15, after ("(or") insert (", if requested so to do by any public authority,")
  The noble Baroness said: This is a probing amendment designed to clarify the ambiguity of the wording in the clause. On my reading the words, it is not clear whether the agency can impose its help in developing policies at local authority level or whether the emphasis is on assisting with the implication that it will have been asked so to do.
  It is right that the agency should prepare a national policy, for instance, with regard to the contents of labels, the designation of country of origin on processed foods. However, unless it is asked to do so, it should not have the power to interfere with the formation of policy at local levels. It might be acceptable and feasible to advise national government that all government-run subsidised canteens and restaurants, for example, should offer at lunchtime a choice of three raw fruits. However, it might well be totally unacceptable and impractical to suggest a local authority school meals policy whereby apples are served on Monday, pears on Tuesday, bananas on Wednesday, oranges on Thursday and fruit salad on Friday, which might make much more sense. In such a case it is important that the legislation clearly allows local authorities to make up their minds on this matter. This clause spells out the fact that the Government may ask the food standards agency to develop policy. It is surely reasonable that local authorities may do the same, rather than waiting to be told which matters the food standards agency wishes to address.
  Finally I am concerned at the cost of running the food standards agency, and the level of charges it may end up having to levy. For example, many would quite rightly say that council tax bills are high enough without adding charges for unsought advice or central direction. I beg to move.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps I can speak to Amendment No. 21, which is grouped with Amendment No. 19. This probes not only the wording of Clause 6(3) but also that of Clause 6(2) because the two subsections are linked. Clause 6(2) states,
  "A Minister of the Crown or government department, the National Assembly for Wales, the Scottish Ministers or a Northern Ireland Department may request the Agency to exercise its powers under this section in relation to any matter".
  Clause 6(3) states,
  "It is the duty of the Agency, so far as is reasonably practicable, to comply with any such request".
  So that I am absolutely sure I am not talking about legislation passed by the Scottish Parliament or by the Northern Ireland Assembly, if it comes about, or by the National Assembly for Wales—which would have to comprise secondary legislation—I wish to confirm that any legislation they pass which impinges on the food standards agency will have to be implemented by the food standards agency. I presume that the word "request" concerns non-legislative matters. I want to

  CWH 55
  be absolutely sure of that, and I believe I am. We are talking about non-legislative requests and I understand that.
  However, my question is: who decides what is reasonably practicable? Is it the agency itself? If there is a disagreement between the agency and, let us say, the United Kingdom Government, if it is a request pertaining to England, or between the agency and the Scottish Government, if it is a request pertaining to Scotland, who resolves any argument? I can see that the Scottish Parliament might say, "We do not believe that it is not practicable to carry out this measure and we do not accept the agency's response that it will not carry out the measure because it does not believe that it is reasonably practicable". These are strange words to put into a Bill as regards an agency and its relation to government. If the agency is to take the decision, that at least is clear. I am not saying I would be happy about that but at least it is clear. I ask again who is to take the decision as regards what is reasonably practicable if it comes to a dispute?
  I know the Minister will tell me that everybody will sit down and hammer it out and that it will all be very nice on the night. That may be fine some of the time, but I have to say that it is not fine all of the time. The noble Baroness reminded me that Scotland has a bad record on E. coli. It is conceivable that because of that the Scottish Parliament may decide that it wants to do something which does not comprise legislation but a request to be "tighter" in some way. The agency may say, "It is not practicable for us to do this in Scotland when we are not being asked to do it in the rest of the United Kingdom". Who will decide on that practicability? While people may get on quite well, just occasionally in the past agencies and governments and departments have disagreed, and we must assume that all will not be perfect for the future and there will be disagreements. I would like to know how these words will be brought into play in the circumstances of a disagreement.
  7.15 p.m.
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I shall deal first with Amendment No. 19. I understand the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, that, as presently drafted, the Bill might lead to the agency imposing a policy on a local authority. I understand her point that she does not want the agency adopting an unduly interfering role in the affairs of local authorities, which are primarily the business of those authorities. I can assure her and other noble Lords that this measure does not allow imposition in the cases that she mentions.
  In a sense, it is implicit in the Bill that the agency's function of providing policy support to other public bodies will be carried out on request. That is in the nature of what we mean by assistance. Nor would those authorities be under any obligation to accept the assistance offered by the agency. We would of course want to encourage and would envisage that the agency
  CWH 56
  would normally work in partnership with government departments and other public authorities in the interests of the public.
  In saying that, however, it is important that we do not preclude the agency from being able to contribute to policy on its own initiative. We have made clear on a number of occasions that the agency should have the independence to act wherever necessary in the interests of public health. There could well be cases in which its expertise and authority would be beneficial to a public body and in some cases it will be best placed to anticipate the food safety implications of a policy issue. In those circumstances, it has to be able to intervene on its own initiative where necessary. The agency may hear about a food safety problem and it will be helpful for it to pass on that knowledge, information and advice to other public authorities which would then have to decide on any action.
  In relation to the suggestion made by the noble Baroness that the agency would flood these authorities with huge amounts of advice, it seems to me that for the agency to do that in an unfocused way would be ineffective and counterproductive. I hope that having heard that explanation, she will agree that it is important for the agency to have this function and that she will agree to withdraw her amendment.
  The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, raises the issue of how the agency is to comply with requests for advice and assistance from the Secretary of State, other appropriate authorities and government departments. It would obviously be our expectation that the agency would make every endeavour to comply with those requests. There may however be situations in which considerations of practicality may not be apparent to Ministers under Clause 6(2). For instance, it may be that when technical experts look at an issue, it becomes clear that what is being requested cannot be done without the disproportionate use of resources. In those circumstances, we do not think it sensible for there to be a duty on the agency to comply with the request. We would, however, as the noble Lord anticipated, expect the agency in those circumstances to explain that what has been requested is not reasonable or practical and possibly to offer alternative options. In line with the agency's guiding principles, it would need to be open and transparent about the advice that it had in fact given.
  I believe that in the circumstances it will be perfectly possible to resolve those issues through discussion where there may be disagreement. It is important, however that within the legislation, the term "so far as is reasonably practical" is a safeguard in relation to dealing with such requests. If the agency's refusal to provide advice was reasonable, the agency having made that decision, the issue of power of direction comes in. If it was reasonable for the agency to refuse to provide the advice that was requested, it would be right that the power of direction would not apply. If, for instance, the agency had made an unreasonable decision and it was perhaps deliberately putting itself on a collision course with Ministers, Ministers could direct it to comply and it would have to do so or risk being in breach of its statutory duty. I hope that, in

  CWH 57
  those circumstances, the noble Lord will agree that the situation is covered and that he will withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Before my noble friend responds to what might be called the lead amendment. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation. It is very difficult to see a way out of a dilemma in which the agency may decide the request is not practicable. I suppose that in parliamentary language this question can only be answered with undue cost, or words to that effect; that is the way out of answering a question which is too difficult or complicated to find the answer. However, I am still a little concerned as to who makes the judgment. If I heard the Minister correctly, the agency will make the judgment. Whatever else this has done, if that is on the record, it makes it perfectly clear who is in the driving seat as far as Clause 6(3)is concerned and it may well prevent any of the problems I was envisaging.
  Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister for his response to my amendment. I gather from his response that although the agency may well give advice the local authority does not necessarily have to take it on board. In some ways, that is unsatisfactory because the advice it was giving would be something you would expect the local authority to take on board. I assume that that judgment will be the agency's responsibility and then the local authority will decide whether or not to take it on.
  Before I sit down and consider it again, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord whether the local authorities are being charged for this advice or is the funding of the advice being borne by the agency itself? I am not quite sure of the relevant responsibility.
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: As far as I am aware, it will not charge for that advice but, if I am wrong, I will write to the noble Baroness.
  Baroness Byford: I am grateful to the Minister for that, because it has implications for local authorities. It could be that the agency comes through with a very good scheme and is giving advice which it believes the local authority should adopt. However, for other reasons, that local authority might well be unable to fulfil the advice being given. I look forward to hearing from the Minister on that. I thank him for his response and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 not moved.]
  Clause 6 agreed to.
  Clause 7 [Provision of advice, information and assistance to other persons]:
  Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 22:
  Page 3, Line 28, after ("section") insert ("or member")
  The noble Baroness said: This amendment looks again at semantics and the Government's intentions. Providing advice to the general public has the connotation to many people of advice through the television, newspaper advertisements or hoardings. Providing advice to any section of the public brings to
  CWH 58
  mind special interest groups; for instance, mothers of babes in arms, the over-60s and many other examples I could give. It should be possible for advice to be given to individuals separately as well where it is not available for general consumption. I imagine that an individual inquiring about something which is already in the public domain will simply be told by the agency where to find the information. However, it should be possible for the agency to provide explicit advice or information to an individual with an uncommon or rare problem, to which, from my reading of the Bill as it stands, that person is not. entitled. I beg to move.
  Lord Clement-Jones: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 27 to Clause 8. This is a purely probing amendment to discover the Government's intentions as far as concerns the research referred to in the clause. It is our view, and that of many consumer groups, that research should be undertaken to ascertain consumer attitudes to ensure that the agency's policies and advice take those consumer attitudes into account.
  Recently we have seen how the public perception of risk can be very different from that of sciences, for example, in the case of genetically modified foods. This is due to a number of issues, but principally it is the different perceptions of risks compared with 'the benefits that are expected to accrue from, for example, a new technology.
  Therefore, decisions have to be based on broader issues other than pure science, and this should include both ethical and environmental considerations. One only has to think of labelling to see that is true. It is important to know what the consumers' attitude towards labelling is, what kind of labelling reassures them and what kind does not. It is not a scientific fact; it is a matter of consumer opinion that needs to be ascertained.
  Consumers need to be involved early enough in the agency's decision making so that their views and concerns can be taken into account. I look forward to the Minister's reply and hope that he or she will be able to elucidate on the matter.
  Lord Desai: I do not know what noble Lords are going to say about these two amendments, but a food standards agency should provide facilities so that members of the public can approach health bodies either individually or together. At the beginning, that would be one of the main tasks the agency would have to perform because people who ask about certain kinds of food and so on, are very few.
  Secondly, following on from what the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, when we talk about risk, people are no longer satisfied with what scientists say, partly because scientists defer among each other, and partly because people assess risk very differently from scientific evidence. My noble friend Lord Rea said a while ago that if you look at the harm done by bad diet, many more people are particular about that than about biological matters. Try and tell that to people in the middle of an E.coli crisis.
  We have to find out why they think about food differently from the way they think about other risks. It is very important. That is how I read the

  CWH 59
  amendment. It may involve anthropology rather than microbiology, but we have to find out why people's attitudes to risk in food are different from their attitude to any other kind of calculable risk.
  The Countess of Mar: The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has made a very important point. The public have a perception—and I note it particularly with cheese because it is my interest—that unpasteurised cheese is extremely dangerous and that unpasteurised milk is extremely dangerous, but if they were told that food poisoning incidents—incidents rather than outbreaks—from cheese and from unpasteurised milk in the past 10 years have been at 0.3 per cent. of food poisoning records, they might have a different perception. This is the difference between their perception of food poisoning which is dramatised by press reports and, dare I say it, ministerial action which frightens everybody to death, and the actuality—this is one of the important aspects—of having a food standards agency. They will have all these figures at their fingertips. It is also important that we have proper records.
  7.30 p.m.
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I do not disagree with any of the principal points made about the importance of the agency having a good, effective interrelationship with consumers, and with the concerned consumers. Nor do I disagree with the comments about the need for information to be available and the importance of effective research.
  Perhaps I may start by referring to the probing amendment put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, who was absolutely right to raise the question as to whether or not the Bill gives the agency a function to provide information or advice to individuals as well as to the general public. It is important that individuals should have access to the information and advice which the agency will be in a position to give. Indeed, it is my expectation, and I believe it is important, that the agency will quickly develop into the sort of body on which individuals can and should rely to provide information on food safety, the definition of a healthy diet, food claims and so on.
  I can reassure the noble Baroness that the Bill does this. The Bill uses the legal convention that the plural, in this case the collective noun, can also mean the singular. I hope that allays her concerns on that point.
  Let me then turn to the issue of research and the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I reiterate that it is important to remember that the agency, if it is to command the confidence of the public that we desire and if it is to help in the process of restoring consumer confidence in the nation's food, will have a major task in relation to the advice, help, information and research that it can undertake in this area.
  In response to my noble friend, Lord Desai, I can say that the agency will be running a helpline for consumers and individuals who seek advice. In
  CWH 60
  accordance with service first principles, it will do everything in its power to respond to correspondence from individuals asking for advice on specific points.
  In relation to the issue of research, I do not believe the amendment is necessary. The consumer research function is already covered by subsection (1). Adding this phrase to subsection (2) could have the perverse effect of narrowing the agency's scope for action rather than broadening it. In a sense, I am repeating the response which the noble Lord feared that, if you single out one particular aspect or provision, it might cast doubt on the generality of the clause as a whole.
  Let me reassure Members of the Committee that we expect the agency to carry out or commission consumer research in order, for example, to test the effectiveness of the agency and its communication policies. We also expect the agency to carry out or commission surveys of consumer attitudes to inform its decision making, which is the very point made by a number of noble Lords in this debate. That needs careful planning to ensure that this is robust research and that the surveys undertaken are effective. We expect this to be a high priority with the agency when it is up and running.
  Let me conclude by repeating that there is no question but that subsection (1) of Clause 6 gives the agency the function of obtaining, compiling and keeping under review information about,
  "matters connected with food safety or other interests of consumers in relation to food".
  It is abundantly clear and, on that basis, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Clement-Jones: First, I thank the Minister for his reply to my particular amendment. I was fascinated by his reply to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford—some expensive legal advice must have been obtained about that particular piece of drafting, which adds to the repertoire of ministerial responses. I thought it was very useful for the databank!
  On Amendment No. 27, words such as "high priority" for the agency of that kind of research seem to me to "hit the button" as far as the amendment is concerned. I take the point that it could well be subsumed in that. What the noble Lord has done is respond clearly to that probing amendment and we appreciate that.
  The Countess of Mar: Before the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, speaks, perhaps I may ask the Minister a question. The agency is being given a function of advising the members of the public on food safety. Will that include, for example, advising them not to buy a chicken in the supermarket on a hot day and leave it in their car boot while they have coffee with their neighbour, and then complain about the chicken giving them food poisoning?
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I cannot anticipate the detail of the advice that the agency will be giving, but I would expect the agency to give practical advice on such matters. Going back to the points I originally made, this body will not be effective unless it is able to

  CWH 61
  give advice on the kind of issues that those of us who shop actually wish to know and to learn about and take advantage of
  Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister for his response to my amendment. I was not a university graduate myself and I have great difficulty in appreciating that it referred to the singular as well when it clearly, as far as I was concerned, referred to the plural. Never mind that! It is getting late and my mind is misty and is not working as well as it might.
  I have heard what the noble Lord has said, and what he said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on the fact that a help-line phone and written matters will be very much part of the agency's remit. I am personally delighted to hear that.
  With those few comments, I am still amazed that the language is thus. Presumably it always is, and if it always is I have to bow to the greater language. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 not moved.]
  Clause 7 agreed to.
  Clause 8 [Acquisition and review of information]:
  [Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
  Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 26:
  Page 3, line 43, after ("commissioning") insert ("insofar as it is possible within its existing financial resources")
  The noble Baroness said: This amendment tries to establish financial resources.
  [The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 7.38 to 7.49 p.m.]
  Baroness Byford: On each 6th April a new tax year begins. For many companies and organisations, this is also the start of a new financial year. Departments and individuals are told how much money they have to spend and what the expenditure should achieve. Indeed, earlier on we agreed that this will apply to this food standards agency as well. Looking at company ministerial results, it is obvious that the bulk of financial targets are met within fairly narrow limits. One ongoing exception is the National Health Service, where increasing demands often outstrip available resources. Large scale project development and long-run research programmes also frequently fail to stay within their financial boundaries. One can think of certain MoD contracts and many private and public computer developments.
  Our concern is that the agency should be expected from the very beginning to match its costs to available finance. It should also be aware that it cannot legally make plans that are likely to result in their being over the budget in that area—admittedly one that is difficult to control with precision. I am trying with this amendment to tell the agency that it should be working within its planned financial resources. Certainly we referred earlier—when I used the word "levy" where I
  CWH 62
  should have said "charge"—to expecting more work to be done outside the existing financial resources. I beg to move.
  Baroness Hayman: I am grateful for the noble Baroness's explanation of the thinking behind this amendment. As a general issue, I should say that the agency will need to be financially responsible in all elements of its work and will also need to be financially accountable. Research should be no different from other elements of the agency's work although I recognise—having now been responsible for research budgets in different departments—that they are long-term enterprises and there can be a problem in terms of ensuring that one recognises the ongoing financial commitments to which research refers.
  It is important to put on the record, however, that the agency will have art important function in commissioning this new research, as well as compiling and reviewing information from other sources. It is essential, if the policy on food matters is to be properly informed, that it is based on the best available scientific knowledge. The precise direction of this research programme is a matter for the agency itself to decide in the light of future developments and of its own priorities. That is not to say that the agency can spend limitless amounts of money on whatever it wishes. It will have a budget and will have formally to account for how it has been spent. Should it want additional funds for further research, it would have to find that money from within its own resources or to negotiate with the Treasury for additional funds. I should make clear to the Committee that the agency will start out with a significant research budget of about £25 million, which it will inherit from MAFF and the Department of Health. While this may seem a substantial sum, Members of the Committee will well understand, given the range of issues that can be covered by research in this field, that the agency will have to establish its priorities carefully as well as look at existing commitments which have been inherited in terms of the research programme.
  I hope it will reassure the noble Baroness when I say that the agency will have to deal in a responsible way with the funds it allocates as a priority for research, as it will have to deal in a responsible way with other funds under other budget headings. It will be properly accountable to Parliament for the money that it spends, including its spending on research. That is dealt with in Clause 39, the financial provisions, and in Schedule 4, accounts and audit. I do not believe it is necessary therefore to introduce additional references to controls, or additional references insofar as it is possible within its existing financial resources in this particular area of the agency's budget. I hope the noble Baroness will find those assurances sufficient to withdraw this amendment.
  Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister for her response. I am well aware that the agency will be financially responsible and accountable and we have already discussed that. Research is always one area in which the mind runs away with one thinking that there is more work one wants to do, and in putting in

  CWH 63
  "existing financial resources" I did not want to find that the agency was able to run away with its budget and have to come back to others to supplement it.
  I also take the point the Minister made that it will perhaps be able to seek additional finance to help on the research side, and also that it would use best available scientific knowledge, for which we are grateful. With the whole question of resource, if we look at projects that have occurred elsewhere, the tendency has always been that they outrun the money, and that was my concern in bringing this amendment to the Committee.
  CWH 64
  I thank the Minister for her comments and for her compassion this afternoon, because it has been a long afternoon. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 27 not moved.]
  Clause 8 agreed to.
  Baroness Hayman: This may be a convenient moment to adjourn the Committee.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Chesham): The Committee stands adjourned until tomorrow at 3.30 p.m.
  The Committee adjourned at two minutes before eight o'clock

  Midwives in the NHS
  Midwives in the NHS
  Lithuania: Invitation to President
  Lithuania: Invitation to President
  Crime Statistics
  Crime Statistics