Sitting of 14 October 1999

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chichester.

Prestwick Airport: Fifth Freedom Rights
Baroness Thomas of Walliswoodasked Her Majesty's Government:
How United Kingdom airlines will benefit from the unilateral granting of fifth freedom rights to the United States cargo airlines in and out of Prestwick airport.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston): My Lords, although United Kingdom airlines will not benefit directly from the granting of fifth freedom rights to US cargo carriers from Prestwick, there will be significant economic benefits to the region and to the UK as a whole: and UK airlines stand to gain from the ensuing liberalisation of the overall market.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, in his Answer, for which I thank him, the noble Lord has made the point that I was making in my Question. We are engaged in long drawn-out negotiations, which I believe are currently stalled, on the exchange of open skies access. Does the Minister agree that when one is negotiating with a very powerful party, it is not wise to grant one of that party's most powerful airlines rights to which we cannot gain access in our negotiating partner's country?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, we believe that the Prestwick decision represents a good deal for the UK as a whole. As the noble Baroness says, the talks have stuttered along for many years now. The modest offer that we have made is useful in a number of ways. It begins to open up our proposals on talks with the United States. It also represents a good deal for the United Kingdom as a whole. We were working under a threat that FedEx would withdraw its services from Prestwick if it were not granted fifth freedom rights to work out of Stansted. We held the line firmly on Stansted and the regional airports for the large markets in England, which form the major bargaining chip in the negotiations.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as the Minister is aware, it is most unusual to negotiate without any reciprocity in these kinds of talks. Did the UK Government ask for any concessions from the United States Government in return for those rights? Did they, for example, raise the issue of wet leasing, which is of concern to the British cargo airline industry? We welcome the commitment to liberalisation, but we
508
really should be getting something for our airlines in exchange. Is there any prospect of obtaining concessions from the United States—for example, in regard to a third carrier from Heathrow to America?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, based on our negotiating position, talks with the Americans are scheduled for next week. We have the support of companies such as FedEx, which, far from withdrawing from Prestwick, are now using that airport. They are also using their best endeavours to bring pressure to bear upon the American Government. As we enter the discussions next week, in what has been a lengthy and complex negotiation, obviously we do not want to talk too publicly about any bargaining positions. By engaging the Americans in discussion regarding cargo and fifth freedoms, we hope to be able open up the larger issues of liberalisation that the British Government have pursued for some time.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware of briefings from FedEx stating that,
"The British cargo airlines cannot offer, nor do they propose to offer, the aircraft types, products or services",
that they can, and that they have only 1 per cent of the total market? Does my noble friend agree that, unless British cargo airlines have fifth freedom rights in reciprocal arrangements, their share of the market will never rise above 1 per cent?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, the British companies involved in the British Cargo Airline Alliance are indeed small. There are four of them, and they have less than 10 per cent of the UK market. In an increasingly global business, dominated by the Americans, it is our hope that we shall be able to achieve a deal with the United States that would allow our cargo companies to fly into the United States, and also have the right to wet lease airports in what is a very restrictive US market in terms of inward investment, wet leasing and cabotage. We want to crack the market, but we have no illusions as regards the difficulties that have been experienced to date. We shall attempt to ensure a strong negotiating position based on the line that we have taken in regard to Stansted and other airports.
Lord Gladwin: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that, in the resumed bilateral negotiations with the United States, the interests of the all-cargo operators, so often the Cinderella in these matters, will not, in the final deal, take second place to the interests of the passenger airlines who, in this context, may adopt the role of the ugly sisters?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, the negotiations which we begin next week will be concentrated on cargo. We will of course have the interests of British carriers at the centre of it.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is a highly sensitive issue, particularly at

509
this juncture? It would not be possible for the Government to reveal their negotiating hand fully at this moment. Does my noble friend further agree that it is extremely important to use every endeavour, without creating any prejudice of consequence to British airlines, that the logjam that has persisted for a long time in these negotiations for fifth freedom rights should be broken?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for the realistic perspective that he puts on these matters. I agree that it is important that the logjam be broken and to challenge what we believe are unhelpful attitudes in some aspects of the reciprocity that should exist between two countries that believe in liberalised markets. We will press hard and will look to FedEx and other companies involved to help us in our efforts to persuade the American administration of the need for change.
Lord Montague of Oxford: My Lords, does the Minister feel we should be worried by his use of the words "concentrated on cargo" when it comes to negotiations which will take place next week? Uppermost in the consumer's mind will be the cost of air fares, which could come down. Will that be given due consideration during the negotiations?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, we have agreed that we would like to get the talks back on track on passenger and cargo issues. We look forward to the initial exploratory discussions next week, but have in train other possibilities for negotiation with the United States, including an international conference which has been called in Chicago for December.

Ethnic Minority Languages: Information Format
3.15 p.m.
Lord Ahmedasked Her Majesty's Government:
In the light of the research in the June 1999 report by the Joseph Rowntree Trust that suggests that audio information is the most accessible format for those who speak ethnic minority languages, what provision is available nationally to ensure that information in ethnic minority languages is in formats accessible to all.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, the provision of information is primarily made in a written format, though I am advised that the Home Office and other government departments have entered into an agreement with the Central Office of Information for the provision of Braille, large script and audio tapes. With the exception of Braille, they can be adapted to ethnic minority languages. It is for each department to test and determine the most appropriate format for information, depending on the target audience.
Lord Ahmed: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Can my noble friend inform the House what provision the Government have to encourage and support initiatives for the blind and partially blind within the visible minorities? Is he aware that Bradford Talking Magazines are providing an excellent service? Does he agree with me that projects such as the Bradford Talking Magazines need not only be given resources to consolidate and expand their work but also be made more efficient by being encouraged to be more culturally and religiously sensitive?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. I willingly extend my congratulations to Bradford Talking Magazines for the excellent service they operate for those who are visually impaired from ethnic minority groups within their community. Theirs is a model of good practice which should be extended as widely as possible. We nationally have much to learn from it.
As to the Government's position, we make adequate and good provision through the Central Office of Information which has a wealth of expertise in the field. As I said earlier, it has the capacity to translate work into Braille, large script and audiotapes, where appropriate. After all, it is for each department to determine how best to make use of its own resources and the way in which it works.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House how many languages are clamouring to be heard?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am sure the noble Earl will appreciate that we live in a multicultural society. It is right and proper that we make adequate provision for it. My advice is that the Central Office of Information provides for some 50 ethnic languages to be translated into different formats. There are Hindi, Punjabi, Chinese, Vietnamese, Greek and the Cypriot language. Those are the languages on which advice is most commonly sought.
Lord McNair: My Lords, as a corollary to the noble Lord's Question, can the Minister say what resources the Government are putting in to make English language learning as widely available as possible to our diverse population?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord asks a good question. It is not for me to speculate on the size of the budget, which is probably mostly not from the Home Department. I am sure that we are making good provision through all departments, and particularly the Department for Education and Employment. If the noble Lord wants more information on that I shall be more than happy to try to assist him and will write to him in due course.

Northern Ireland: Hospitalisation for Child Beatings
3.17 p.m.
Lord Northbourneasked Her Majesty's Government:
How many children in Northern Ireland under the age of 18 have been admitted to hospital for treatment as a result of beatings during the most recent 12-month period for which statistics are available.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs): My Lords, I regret that figures are not kept centrally on the subject. However, the Royal Victoria Hospital in Belfast, which covers the west of the city where many such attacks take place and which is an acknowledged centre of excellence in treating such injuries, reports that three young persons under the age of 18 were admitted in the period to 30th September.
To set that in context, the RUC reports that 67 young people aged under 21 were victims of paramilitary attacks.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for those figures. Does he agree that the root of the problem is that the Government have been unsuccessful so far in containing anti-social behaviour by teenage groups in Northern Ireland.? That has the result, first, of the illegal and intolerable child abuse. Secondly, it adds credibility to the role of the paramilitary. Thirdly, it risks shaming this country before the Committee of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which we have to report next year.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, although it is sometimes alleged that some of these attacks are in response to anti-social behaviour and criminality, such as joyriding, the Government still do not believe that that is any justification for these attacks. Many of the victims have not behaved anti-socially. Sometimes the attacks have been the result of grudges, intimidation of opponents and even mistaken identity. We believe that these attacks are not about justice but control by paramilitaries and we condemn them absolutely.
Baroness David: My Lords, can my noble friend inform the House whether a commissioner for children, as Mr Bryce Dickson, head of the new Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission recommended, has been appointed so that there is somebody to look after the interests of these children? I understand that some of them are exiled to England. What happens to them here, and who takes care of them?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, my noble friend asks me two questions to which I am not sure I have the full answer. Certainly, young persons have been threatened with
512
death if they do not leave Northern Ireland. They have left Northern Ireland under those threats, sometimes with members of their families and sometimes in other circumstances. Those threats are to be condemned absolutely. I prefer to write to my noble friend about the details of that and the Commission for Human Rights and the work that it does with children.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, how many people have been prosecuted for these offences?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I do not have the answer to that question. It is regrettable that in many instances because of intimidation the victims will not reveal information to the RUC. We urge them to do so. David Trimble urged people to report the details of such incidents to the RUC. Unfortunately, the intimidation is of a very high order and people are afraid to report—hence it is extremely difficult to catch the people who have done it.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, will the Minister meet the smaller political parties in Northern Ireland to discuss with them community restorative justice and nonviolent alternatives to punishment beatings?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I appreciate the noble Lord's longstanding interest in this subject. There are a number of projects in the community that are intended to deal with young people who behave in an anti-social manner. I repeat, that is no justification for the attacks upon them. However, for example we have begun a Youth-At-Risk Programme which is designed for those in society who are most at risk from offending and offers a lengthy and intensive intervention. We are also on the look-out for other schemes to help in this way. I shall certainly pass on the suggestion of the noble Lord to Adam Ingram, the Minister responsible for policing and security.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, I support the thrust of the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. These "anti-social beatings"—call them what you will—have been going on for 20 years or more and have very little to do with the ceasefire not being carried out properly. We need to know far more about them, and hospital statistics may help in that regard. Does my noble friend agree that it may be a good idea for him to consult the appropriate Home Office Minister? I suspect that similar acts take place in other parts of the United Kingdom. I received a letter this morning from a former constituent which described the case of a young man who reported a drug offence in a certain area and was beaten up. Such behaviour takes place not just in Northern Ireland and needs to be watched carefully.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, as my noble friend knows better than anybody in this House, the difference in Northern Ireland is that these attacks are earned out by paramilitary organisations, sometimes in a rather organised manner. We are in touch with the Home

513
Office and if there are any further developments and other ways to deal with the problem we shall take steps. I repeat, in the end it is the illegal and brutal action by paramilitary organisations that is the real cause of this problem. It is that which prevents the RUC from being able to catch the assailants because the victims are too scared to provide the information.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, will the Minister comment on the report that the Human Rights Commissioner has asked for the appointment of a commissioner for children and for money to support action by the commission to take those cases to court on behalf of the families?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am unable to comment but I shall endeavour to provide some information to the noble Baroness by letter.
Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, can the Minister clarify whether the £1 million of additional moneys that the Government recently announced had been given to the victims' fund will be available for victims of these punishments? Is the Minister aware of the work of the Women's Caring Trust, which is the beneficiary of the proceeds of the annual House of Lords and House of Commons swimming gala, that has been actively supporting cross-border and cross-community projects in Northern Ireland, particularly those involving young people?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am aware of the Women's Caring Trust and the valuable work that it does, as described by the noble Lord. As to the money that we have made available to victims, if they qualify under the terms of the scheme that money will be available to the victims of paramilitary attacks as for other victims of paramilitary activity.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, does the Minister agree that we delude ourselves if we believe that there is a proper ceasefire when such dreadful acts of terrorism—because that is what it is—take place, often committed by persons who claim to be protecting the communities in which those activities take place? Can the noble Lord confirm a report in the newspapers that the new Secretary of State cancelled his predecessor's diary and went to visit a facility to look after youngsters who had been so brutally beaten up? If so, I am sure that the House will join me in saying that that is a very welcome development and appreciation by the new Secretary of State of exactly some of the horrors that occur at street level in Northern Ireland.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, without being able to confirm it absolutely, I believe that the new Secretary of State made such a visit. I cannot comment on whether he cancelled his predecessor's diary. However, the previous Secretary of State had to make a very difficult decision about the overall status of the ceasefire in Northern Ireland. She made that decision.
514
The new Secretary of State, like his predecessor, will receive regular advice from security advisers about the state of the ceasefire and will also have to make a judgment in the round. We believe that the ceasefire is holding, much as we condemn the paramilitary attacks.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in the light of the question of my noble friend Lord Onslow, will the Minister inform the House how many convictions there have been, if any? I understand the noble Lord's point about the difficulty of obtaining convictions. What is the maximum penalty for such a beating, and what is the average penalty meted out to those who are convicted?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I do not have to hand the answer to the question put by the noble Baroness but I shall certainly provide it. If it is helpful I shall place in the Library information about both the number of convictions and the penalties for such offences.

UNESCO: Director-General
3.27 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwichasked Her Majesty's Government:
What qualities they are seeking in the new director-general of UNESCO.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government firmly believe that it is important that all senior appointments to international bodies are made on the basis of merit. It is essential that the new director-general of UNESCO should be effective and reformist. Her Majesty's Government believe that UNESCO's activities need to be more effectively and efficiently focused on the challenges that the world faces today.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply. Does she agree that this is one of the most important posts in international development and, sadly, it has been highly politicised in the past? Will the Government ensure that they support the right candidate for the job—somebody with the best qualities to manage the organisation—and that his or her nationality will not be regarded as an obstacle in that appointment?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, that this is an important post. The Government are firmly committed to ensuring that the right candidate is chosen for that post. They are also committed to ensuring that that candidate will reform UNESCO so that it is an effective organisation.
With respect to the noble Earl's questions about the nationality of candidates, I can advise the House that there are 11 candidates, five are from Asia and the

515
Pacific, three from Europe, two from the Arab world, and one from the Caribbean; so there is a number of nationalities from which to choose.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that among the front runners of the 11 candidates there is a Saudi Arabian national'? However well qualified he may be in many ways, it is alleged that he is a strong supporter of the death penalty. While one might well expect a Saudi Arabian to support what happens in his own country, if that is true it would not he right for the director-general of a great international organisation with immense ethical and charitable functions. I should be most grateful if my noble friend could tell us anything about it.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, one of the candidates is from Saudi Arabia. I am unable to respond to the other points made by my noble friend.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I endorse the Minister's comment that it is vital to have a strong leader because the recent history of UNESCO has been troubled. As the noble Earl pointed out, it is an important international organisation.
Will the Minister bear in mind the work being done in trying to establish a global Internet system of advanced education, I think being sponsored by the World Bank? Britain could undoubtedly make an important contribution to such a global Internet educational system because of the noble Baroness's own expertise in areas such as the Open University.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that question. I confirm that the Government are working with UNESCO to ensure that the priorities of UNESCO involve a focus on education, and on communication, using the technology available. We are strongly committed to the international development targets. We feel strongly that UNESCO has a key role to play in the target of providing universal primary education. We support any way in which we can use technology and Internet access to facilitate that.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, in her original reply the Minister said that the successful candidate needs to be efficiently and effectively focused. What does the noble Baroness mean?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, UNESCO is a major international organisation. It poses a significant management and leadership challenge for the individual who runs that organisation. Since the UK Government rejoined UNESCO soon after this Government came into power in 1997 we have made no secret of the fact that we feel that the organisation needs to be more effective and more focused in its priorities. In my original response I referred to the need to prioritise and the need for the new director-general to manage the organisation effectively.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that one of the candidates is a citizen
516
of Sri Lanka? From the British point of view, might there be merits in having a director-general from a nation in the British Commonwealth?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, if we continue in this way I shall have to give all 11 countries from which there are candidates. I confirm that there is a candidate from Sri Lanka. There are candidates from three Commonwealth countries.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her Answer to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, However, I should be grateful if she could go a little further specifically in the context of next month's highly contentious elections. The Minister has given the House an assurance that the next director-general will be chosen on merit alone. Can she add that prejudice as to national origin, power politics and regional loyalties will not be allowed under any circumstances to play a determining role in the selection of the successful candidate?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I know that the noble Lord will expect my reply to be the same as my original response: the United Kingdom Government are committed to ensuring that the candidate is chosen on the basis of merit.

Acts of Parliament
3.35 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I do not wish to detain the House, but it may be helpful if I explain briefly the background to what may appear to be a rather arcane Motion about archives.
On 16th June the House approved the Second Report from the Offices Committee which recommended that the record copies of Acts of Parliament kept in the House of Lords Record Office should be printed on archival paper instead of vellum with effect from the first Act of the year 2000. The House also agreed that the supply of a duplicate copy for the Public Record Office should cease.
In approving the Offices Committee Report, the House approved these recommendations. The substantive issue has, therefore, already been decided. The purpose of this Motion before us today is to replace the Resolution agreed by Parliament in 1849 to print two record copies of every Act on vellum with a new Resolution to print one copy on archival paper.
Moved, to resolve that, notwithstanding the Resolution of this House of 8th February 1849, the record copy of each Act of Parliament, authenticated by the Clerk of the Parliaments and deposited in the House of Lords Record Office, shall be printed on

517
archive paper instead of vellum; that the supply of a duplicate copy to the Public Record Office shall be discontinued; and that these changes shall take effect in respect of all Acts which receive Royal Assent after 1st January 2000.—(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I hope that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House will not mind if I detain the House for a minute or two. We are changing the practice of 150 years and I think it deserves a small pause. I agree with the noble Baroness that it is a change worth making.
Perhaps I may confirm my understanding, first, that no Acts of Parliament which are currently printed on vellum will be now copied on to archive paper? Secondly, will the noble Baroness confirm whether representations have been made by the manufacturers of vellum; and what the House's response has been? Finally, since we are moving this Resolution today, am I right in thinking that we also need the agreement of another place; or can we act unilaterally on our own?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition. We are changing a practice of some substantial historical period. On the other hand, as I said, the substantive point was agreed when the House approved the Offices Committee Report in June.
First, my understanding is that this will be a change which occurs only on the first Act of the year 2000. In that sense I think it is unlikely that Acts which are presently stored in this way will be transferred. I thought that he might suggest that they be put on the Internet, or something of that kind, since we sometimes discuss that in another context.
Secondly, there have indeed been representations, I believe, to individual Members of another place from one of the manufacturers concerned with the production of vellum. I am not aware that individual Members of this House have been similarly approached—noble Lords may rise to say that they have.
Thirdly, it is true that the other place has to agree to this proposal. As noble Lords will be aware, it has not yet resumed sitting in this Session. I understand that its Administration Committee will put this matter to the House in the very immediate period.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness for having missed this matter when it came before the House earlier. We need to be increasingly vigilant over these various proposals for change which can slip past less acute eyes—as mine clearly were.
I am perfectly happy that we should change from vellum to archive paper. That makes sense. I am not happy if there ceases to be deposited in the Public Record Office an authenticated copy of Acts of Parliament. The Public Record Office is a source of historical documents. It is a historical source. As a journalist I have frequently used it myself. Historians
518
make use of it all the time. We expect to find the originals of documents in the Public Record Office. How much money will be saved by not depositing in the Public Record Office one copy of Acts of Parliament on the new archive paper? Acts of Parliament are of great importance. I am most unhappy at the idea that the Public Record Office should lose its completeness in this way.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I would not wish to comment on his vigilance, but I understand that the House of Lords Administration Sub-Committee first agreed to this discontinuance in 1985; so his eye may have been distracted for quite some time.
I am advised that the Public Record Office has agreed to the proposal. As regards the total costs, I understand that the financial savings to the House of Lords are about £30,000 a year, but that is for the total change. I shall of course write to the noble Lord on the specific changes he raises about the two copies.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I stand second to no one in my antipathy to change. But in this case, the whole thing seems a little silly. We have agreed to change to a different kind of paper, but for those of us who are interested in records, surely, the place for this information is on CD-ROM. It is much more easily searched and records in hard copy form are physically ridiculous. CD-ROM is the place where they should be kept permanently and efficiently.
As we are approaching the year 2000, is it not time for your Lordships' House to inch forward—perhaps to move forward more than inches—and adopt a practice which corresponds to modern-day technology?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I hesitate to comment on my noble friend's perception of the historical changes which are made, but he raised the issue which I thought the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition would raise. We have had many exchanges using e-mail and so forth. I am advised that the probable life expectancy of the archival paper which is to replace the velum is about 500 years, but the life of a CD-ROM has yet to be tested in that context.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am a member of the Lord Chancellor's Committee for Public Records and I am unaware of the subject being raised at the previous two meetings which I have attended. However, I presume that all is not lost because anyone who wishes to look for records can find them here. Can the Minister confirm that?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, yes, I can confirm that. The issue is the different nature of the records, not the records themselves.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, as one who uses the Public Record Office from time to time, I support the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, in his view that the originals of the Acts of Parliament should be deposited

519
in the Public Record Office. It is of limited cost and provides good value for those who want to see the originals when in the future they go to them as historians.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I hesitate to he discourteous to my noble friend, but that was one of the points discussed in the Offices Committee. The House then approved the report in June. As I said earlier in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, the Public Record Office has agreed to the change.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Greater London Authority Bill
3.42 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Lord Whitty.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 33 [General duties of the Mayor in relation to his strategies]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 113:
Page 20, line 32, at end insert—
("(8A) The Mayor shall from time to lime set such targets with respect to the implementation of any strategy mentioned in subsection (1) above as he may consider appropriate, having regard to—

(a) any related targets or objectives set nationally; and

(b) any performance indicators set by the Secretary of State, whether nationally or locally, which affect the exercise of functions by authorities involved in the implementation of the strategy;

and in setting any such targets the Mayor shall seek to secure that they are not less demanding than any related targets or objectives which are set nationally.").
The noble Lordsaid: My Lords, Government Amendment. No. 113 provides for the mayor to set such targets as he or she considers appropriate in relation to each strategy. Amendment No. 138, which is the other government amendment in the group, requires the mayor to set current targets and report on progress in achieving them in the GLA's annual report. Our intention that the mayor should set targets in relation to his or her strategy was set out in the original London White Paper. Perhaps noble Lords will recall that the Government undertook to give further consideration to Opposition amendments moved in Committee requiring strategies to contain targets or indicators. These matters were raised both in this House and in the other place.
We indicated that we intended to bring forward appropriate amendments at the Report stage. The targets for which the amendments provide will enable Londoners to see where the strategies are ultimately aiming; to see the long-term objectives; and to track progress being made in implementing each strategy.
520
They will therefore be able to press the mayor, if necessary, to improve performance if they are not being met.
The framework will enable Londoners to track progress in implementing each of the mayoral strategies. I shall listen to what noble Lords say in relation to their amendments, but I hope that the overall amendment achieves what their amendments intend. I shall therefore be asking them to withdraw them. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 113, Amendment No. 113A:
Line 2, after second ("time") insert ("after consulting the bodies and persons specified in section 34").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we welcome the general thrust of these amendments. Any self-respecting public body will set targets and want to ensure that they are properly monitored. That is the thrust of my Amendment No. 113B. Not only will the targets be set but the achievement of them or otherwise will be kept under proper review.
I make the point not thinking that in the common sense world the mayor will fail to monitor the targets but because we encountered the issue when the GLC was abolished. It became clear that in some respects if was difficult to discover what was happening in London, in particular as regards planning. There were difficulties in setting up useful and workable systems for monitoring what was happening with planning applications and their implementation. That was in my mind in tabling that amendment. I hope that the Minister will either accept it or assure me that implicit in the wording of the Government's amendment is monitoring.
As regards Amendment No. 113A, I hope that the mayor, in setting targets, will have regard to targets set by other bodies concerned with what is happening in London. I include in particular the London boroughs. They, too, have targets and performance indicators. We, like all noble Lords, are concerned that there will not be a duplication of effort between the new authority and the London boroughs, but we appreciate that their areas of responsibility will cover the same subject matter, although one hopes not precisely the same ground. My amendments, including Amendment No. 114A, are designed to ensure that there is a coherent approach.
My Amendment No. 138A is tabled for clarification that the authority is the subject of Clause 38(1)(b) and to ensure that the "Authority" and the "authorities" are covered. I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, my Amendment No. 114 is directed to a specific point. I heard what the Minister said in his opening remarks—that he hoped we would be satisfied and withdraw our amendments—but in the light of those remarks, I am not sure that that will apply. It will depend on what he says in reply. The government amendment properly

521
requires the mayor to establish targets and so on and so forth,
"as he may consider appropriate having regard to … targets or objectives set nationally; and
(b) any performance indicators set by the Secretary of State".
Of course, both of those factors are important, but I find it absolutely unbelievable that the mayor should be required to establish targets, objectives and indicators without some regard to the assembly, whose members are required to represent the views of the people of London and who might be expected to have a view on the matter.
My Amendment No. 114 is on the Marshalled List to ensure that in setting those targets the mayor has regard to the views of the assembly and therefore has regard to the views of the people of London. That is what the Bill is all about. Frankly, I do not believe that a throwaway line suggesting that it might be automatically withdrawn in introducing this group is a satisfactory way of treating the seriousness of the subject.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I may be misunderstanding this issue, but it seems that, in spite of Clause 34 which involves taking account of the assembly's views and of each London borough council, according to the terms of the amendment the government of the day could use the mayor to frustrate the local borough councils. Local borough councils can use their funds within their total budget to a considerable extent to implement their own priorities. That is what they are there for; that is why people elect them—to make local decisions about local priorities. If the mayor is to be, as it were, glued to the point of view of central government in that respect, it will simply be a way of centralising decision-making in London.
I may be misunderstanding that point, but it seems unwise for the Government to do that. The mayor should be taking account of government priorities and of local government priorities when deciding on a course of action. We all know that local decisions have to taken be within a framework set by central government. That is always the case, and local governments know that. But their great value is that they establish local priorities. How are they going to do that if the Government say, "Hoy! The mayor must do what we say"? This amendment seems to say that he will have to override local government in his decisions. If I am not misunderstanding the point, the Government should be very careful about that.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, we are pleased to see that the Government have brought forward Amendment No. 113, which takes note of our comments in Committee on setting targets, and so on. We consider it right also that the mayor, when setting those targets, should have some regard to any related targets or objectives which are set nationally. Indeed, I made that point when, in speaking on Tuesday to
522
Amendment No. 106, I said that we had no difficulty with the mayor "having regard to". However, we had difficulty with the words,
"ensure that they were consistent with".
I believe it right also, when setting targets, that the mayor must have regard to any performance indicators as described in the new subsection (8A).
Furthermore, we should have no difficulty with the suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that it would perhaps be wise if the word "monitor" were also included, although there might be a different mechanism for the mayor to check whether his targets were being met.
Having taken all that into consideration, why should the mayor, when setting his targets for the implementation of the strategy as he thinks it right for London, also have to—and I go to the end of the amendment—
"seek to secure that they are not less demanding than any related target or objectives which are set nationally"?
There is no suggestion that the mayor would necessarily even consider setting targets for London which are lower than targets set nationally. But there might well be a reason, when he has set his targets, for him to have to take something else into consideration which is not taken into consideration around the rest of the country and which may be pertinent only to London. Therefore that part of the Government's amendment is rather restrictive on the mayor. If the mayor takes note of, or has regard to, national targets, and if he takes note of the indicators, it is then up to him which targets he sets and how he implements his strategy.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am grateful for the admittedly slightly qualified welcome the noble Baroness gave to this amendment because I believe it reflects our debates at earlier stages, both here and elsewhere. I believe that the noble Baroness is reading too much into this as regards the national targets and objectives. Indeed, that point was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy. All we are saying is that the assembly is part of local government and that the mayor, like the rest of local government, must have regard to minimum standards and targets set nationally.
Therefore, in so far as they are minimum standards, the same requirements throughout local government would apply in London to the GLA as they would indeed to the boroughs. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, fears that the Government would use the national targets as a stick with which to beat the boroughs. The boroughs are already in the position of having to pay attention to the national targets. So the clause is not really using the mayor as an extension of the central state. It seeks to ensure that the whole of local government in London has regard to the national targets.
I am sorry if the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, misunderstood me when I indicated that I hoped that his other amendments could eventually be withdrawn. Although that is indeed my hope, I was merely

523
indicating that I believed that the government amendments would in practice meet what his party sought at an earlier stage.
Now that I have heard the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, MOW their amendments, I believe that their points are valid but that the intention of the first clause subsumes the aims of their amendments. Amendment No. 114, tabled in the noble Lord's name, would require the mayor to consult the assembly before setting car targets. Amendment No. 113A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, refers also to that point and relates also to the other bodies specified in Clause 34, including the assembly.
The amendments are already covered by the fact that Clause 34 requires the mayor to consult the bodies listed before preparing or revising any strategy, including targets within that strategy. It would therefore be inconceivable for the mayor not to consult on the targets which related to that strategy at that time. The clause therefore already provides not only for the assembly but for the other bodies mentioned in Clause 34 to be consulted. The mayor would obviously be able to exercise his discretion to decide the number and nature of targets for each strategy, but we do not intend in any sense for that to be done in isolation. In setting the targets, he must have regard to national targets, as I have said, and should not set targets less demanding than those. However, the mayor must also have regard to performance indicators set by the Secretary of State and so forth.
He also operates in a context where there are other strategies operating in London by other public authorities. I cannot agree to the prescription in Amendment No. 114A which requires the mayor to have regard to any indicators or targets set by the boroughs in relation to a strategy. Of course the mayor will need to have regard to what the boroughs are doing and will need to consult the boroughs about the strategies. However, I believe it is over-prescriptive to look at the matter target by target and borough by borough. We are not talking about a power to ignore what the boroughs are saying. But believe that to look at every single target which appears in boroughs' plans and strategies is going a little far. The general consultation requirement covers the overall relationship with the boroughs.
Amendment No. 113B would require the mayor to monitor as well as to set targets. We have already provided for this by requiring the mayor to report on progress to the assembly in the authority's annual report.
Amendment No. 138A would alter that amendment to specify that the mayor's assessment of progress should include progress made by the GLA itself as well as authorities in general. Again, I believe that that is unnecessary. The mayor would be bound to report on the progress of all targets that he sets, including particularly those for which he himself is responsible. The noble Baroness said that it was a clarifying amendment but I should have thought that it was fairly clear from the requirement to report on progress
524
on targets that those included would indeed focus on those targets for which the mayor himself was responsible.
Although I understand some of the points that were made, I believe the general amendment covers those points. The consultation procedures elsewhere in the Bill provide for taking into account those other concerns. Therefore, I hope that we can pass my amendments, and Amendment No. 138 when we come to it, rather than pursue those other amendments.
4 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether I may invite him to comment on the fact that Clause 34, which he has called in aid as a reason for the rejection of my amendment, deals only with the preparational revision of strategies and does not mention the question of targets or performance indicators. Therefore, I believe that there is an argument here which could go either way.
The performance indicators are a separate issue, unless the noble Lord is prepared to give me an assurance that the targets in the performance indicators will be a part of the strategy. If the noble Lord gives me that assurance, I shall be happy to withdraw my amendment
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I believe that I said earlier that, in most cases, certainly the targets will be part of those strategies, or the follow-through to those strategies, as regards which the mayor is also required to consult.
The question of performance indicators could, of course, go more widely than strategies in that there will be internal performance indicators as well as strategic indicators. Therefore, I am not able to give any assurance that all performance indicators will fall within the strategy. However, the targets referred to in this clause are certainly relevant to the strategies and therefore are covered by Clause 34.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I accept the assurances given by the Minister on my amendments but I am rather sad that vet again he seems to have demoted a little the position of the London boroughs. The general point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, was a very good point and one which concerns us a great deal.
The noble Lord says that the general point of having regard to what boroughs are doing is covered because of consultation provisions in Clause 34 and in other provisions in the Bill. However, if that is so, why is it necessary to specify that the mayor must have regard to targets and objectives set nationally and performance indicators set by the Secretary of State? After all, the Bill is very clear about the mayor's obligations regarding strategies being consistent with national policies—a matter which we have discussed at some length. I do not regard the points as consistent in that the Government are suggesting that national targets need to be referred to specifically but that local targets need not.

525
I believe that that point needs to be placed on record again. After all, the boroughs spend much time dealing with performance indicators—not only the ones which they would like to set themselves, but those which meet the Secretary of State's formats and so on. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment No. 113A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 113, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 113B not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 113 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 114 and 114A not moved.]
Clause 34 [Consultation]:
[Amendments Nos. 115 and 116 not moved.]
Clause 35 [Publicity and availability of strategies]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 117:
Page 21, line 24, after first ("to") insert ("the current version of').
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this group of amendments deals with arrangements for publicity and availability of the mayor's strategies, draft strategies, the annual report, the bus guidance document and the GLA publicly available documents in general. We debated the issues raised by these amendments at some length in Committee. We recognise the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, which was shared also by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon. We promised to consider very carefully the points raised.
In the light of our further consideration we tabled a number of amendments to the arrangements for publicity and availability of strategies. One of those amendments will require the mayor to send each strategy to each London borough and to the Common Council. Another will require the mayor to make strategies available for inspection in such cases as he or she considers appropriate, in addition to the GLA's offices. I trust that noble Lords opposite will welcome those amendments.
I turn now to the amendments in my name. Amendments Nos. 117 to 129, with the exception of Amendment No. 118, alter and extend the arrangements in Clause 35 for publicity and availability of strategies. Those amendments respond to the points made in Committee by both Liberal Democrat and Conservative Peers. The amendments do three things. First, they ensure that it is the current version of each strategy that is kept available for inspection. We have taken the point raised by the noble Lords, Lord Dixon-Smith and Lord Lucas, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that the strategies available for inspection must be those in force. Therefore, the amendments remove the requirement that each shall be kept available for a period of six years. As was pointed out in Committee, that could have meant that a strategy in force for more than six years might not be available for inspection.
Secondly and similarly, we have been persuaded that the mayor should be required to send copies of the strategies to the boroughs and to the Common Council as those authorities will be guided by them and have a role in implementing them.
Thirdly, we have also been persuaded of the case for requiring the mayor to make the strategies available for inspection at places other than the GLA's principal offices. I trust those amendments will be welcomed.
Amendments Nos. 533 and 540 to 551 are consequential on the amendments to Clause 35. Amendment No. 412 alters the arrangements for publicity and availability of the bus guidance document in an identical way to those for strategies. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment No. 118. I tabled this provision to ensure that there will be adequate publicity for draft strategies, which arguably need to be made more public, or at least made available to a different group of people than do the final strategies. The Minister's answer previously addressed the form of publicity rather than what was to be publicised.
I appreciate that draft strategies will be the subject of consultation with the boroughs and others. At the last stage the point was made that the boroughs themselves may wish to make arrangements locally for publicity on draft strategies. However, I believe that it is important to make the drafts widely available in order that the consultation process can be effective, by including indirect consultees who may choose either to respond to their own boroughs or who may wish to respond direct to the mayor.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 126, 127, 139 and 150, but my Amendment No. 126 requires the mayor to send out a copy of each of the strategies. Clearly I did not notice the Government amendment which sets out their intention to do that. For that reason, I shall not press the amendment.
In Committee, time did not permit me to move the first two of these amendments—in any event I shall not now move the first one—despite what I consider to be their importance, particularly to the citizens of London. At the moment there is no guaranteed provision for copies of the strategies to be available outside of the mayor's office, with the exception of the provisions just described to us by the noble Baroness. Further copies will be available to the public on payment of a fee to be determined by the mayor. I am very glad indeed that the Government have taken on board our request that the fee should be limited to a "reasonable fee".
The mayor is also obliged to take such steps as in his opinion will give adequate publicity to each of the strategies. However, none of the provisions is adequate in the interests of the current buzzword of "transparency". The mayor's office will not be readily accessible to most residents of London, especially considering the state of public transport on the one

527
hand, and the Deputy Prime Minister's plans to drive private cars off the streets of London on the other. Further, I am willing to give very good odds that in common with most local and national government and government agencies, any available parking that might be outside the office will probably be restricted to officials only.
There has to be a way for someone living in Havering or Hillingdon to be able to discover what the mayor has in mind without having to traipse all the way to central London. It may well be that the mayor will consider it reasonable to provide a copy to every branch of every public library. However, as the clause is presently drawn up, it does not require him to do very much. In his opinion, he may decide to publish his strategy by a notice in the local or a national newspaper. On the other hand, it may be published in a newspaper read by only a small proportion of the population. Which of your Lordships can honestly say that he reads the public notices in the paper of his choice?
Amendment No. 27 also requires the mayor to post his strategies on a website to be established by him. Some time ago, the Government claimed that they have a target for 25 per cent of government services to be accessible electronically by the year 2002. That target has become more ambitious still, as we shall see in a minute. They have even sent Members of your Lordships' House a disc enabling them to reach "gov.direct", provided that Members know how to use the Internet. I must confess that I do not, but I have grandchildren who do.
The provision will require the mayor to follow the excellent example set by the Conservative administration in the London Borough of Wandsworth. It is also environmentally friendly for the information to be published on the Net rather than on paper.
As recently as 13th September, the Prime Minister gave business the following blunt message, which I quote:
"If you don't see the internet as an opportunity, it will be a threat. In two year's time the internet could be as common in the office as the telephone. If you are not exploiting it, you could go bankrupt".
That is the end of the quote. If that is true for companies, then why is it not for the GLA?
On the same day the Prime Minister launched a report that called for all government dealings to be deliverable electronically by 2008. Why not also local government? The report specifically gave plans for the new assemblies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Does the fact that London was not included mean that London is not to be given the same encouragement?
I now move ahead to Amendment No. 139 to Clause 38, which relates to a similar theme; that is, the wider distribution of the mayor's annual report and making it easily available to the members of the public who wish to see it, and indeed 10 the media who in turn will assist in its dissemination.
528
This is a quite innocuous amendment requiring the mayor simply to send a copy to each of the London boroughs and to the Common Council, and to make it freely available on the website. At the previous stage asked the noble Lord the Minister the simple question, "Why not?". I am afraid that I did not receive a satisfactory answer. He said that,
"it may be sensible for the mayor to do se;—[Official Report,23/6/99; col. 983.]
that is, that it would not necessarily be compulsory.
I had tabled the provisions of Amendment No. 150 in Committee but, as the Minister knows, I did not move it then because of the lateness of the hour. It was some time after 9 p.m. and I thought that it required rather more serious debate.
The residents in the area of a local council a re within a comparatively short distance of the town hall or a public library where some councils ensure that some of their documents, such as the minutes, are available. However, in the case of Greater London, that is simply not practical. London is a vast, sprawling city, and the distances to the centre from any of the outer suburbs involves a time-consuming journey, whether by public or by private transport. It is sensible —indeed, it is vital—that interested parties should have access to public documents without having to make that journey.
It would also be a matter of some concern if the authority were required to make reading room facilities available at its offices for casual visitors, or even those arriving by appointment, and to provide copying facilities as well. It would be much more convenient for both parties—the authority and members of the public—if an inquiry could be dealt with by a request for copy documents, with the alternative of everything being made available on the Internet.
I should like to add two points that may be self-evident. First, the documents I am referring to are minutes and what I would call "public documents". It goes without saying that not every piece of paper passing through the authority's hands should be open to public inspection. Of course confidential internal memos, discussion documents, correspondence of a personal nature affecting members of the public and so on should not be available. No doubt in due course the long-awaited freedom of information Act will make it clear which documents are within the public domain and which are not.
Secondly, your Lordships will have noticed that I have taken it for granted that the Government will agree that the public availability of public documents is vital in the interests of open government and local accountability. The only issue is how easily that access should be obtained. Since it is the right of the public to see such documents, access should be by those means most convenient to the public, especially as the authority has ample resources to make the material available within a reasonable time and at a reasonable cost.
It would not be acceptable for the Minister to respond by saying that this amendment is not necessary because of course the authority can be relied

529
upon to do what is right. With no disrespect to anyone at all, since the authority has not yet been formed, I do not believe that we can accept that.
Experience tells me that in dealing with government, whether it be national or local, wringing documents out of officials, especially when it is known that they might contain something embarrassing or which they would rather keep to themselves, gives cause for regret at the passing of the rack or the thumbscrew, although I am not sure that I would endorse that action either.
The Minister will note that I have proposed the same six-year period for the availability of documents as the Government have provided for in Clause 35(4) relating to the publication of the mayor's strategies, and in Clause 38(7) on the availability of the mayor's annual report.
Finally, noble Lords will notice that I have again called for the material to be made freely available on the Internet. Parliament and the Royal Courts of Justice readily make their proceedings public via the Internet. As the Prime Minister pointed out in a speech from which I have already quoted in connection with an earlier amendment, the Internet is the communications medium of the future. London will not want to be left behind in the world of dog-eared documents in public libraries, or of its citizens standing in queues at counters in the new Greater London Authority's building waiting for some official to try to locate a file and being told to come back for it later.
There is no problem in setting up a website and loading it with all the documents you could possibly want. There is also no problem when someone wants to download that information onto a personal computer located anywhere in the world. My personal researcher keeps on coming up with pages of material obtained from the library of Congress, various universities, pressure groups or publications which he tells me he gets via "www something or other dot corn" on the Internet.
Government of the people, by the people, depends on the people having access to all the relevant facts and not confining them to the secret archives of the legislature and its staff. I very much look forward to the Minister giving a lead on the matter of open government by accepting this very simple amendment.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I threatened the Minister earlier in a private message with taking this group amendment by amendment. In fact, the only amendment to which I shall seek to speak individually is Amendment No. 123.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I think that the Government ought to pay particular attention to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I was concerned by the reply given to me by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, when I spoke to the previous amendment. He seems to think that because local government has to work within central Government's targets, all parts of local government
530
will be doing the same thing and the mayor can simply say, "Look, you can't do that because I, the mayor, have to stick to what the Government say in this matter".
There are a number of ways to skin a cat. One of the ways in which local government approaches central Government's targets is to try to have original ideas. A borough, for example, will try to find a method of achieving those targets which will work particularly for its area although the same method may not work for another area. I imagine that the London boroughs will approach the achievement of targets in a variety of ways.
In order that members of the public can discuss with their borough council what the mayor is up to before he actually issues his strategy, it seems important that the mayor should be obliged to ensure that the draft strategy is publicised and is in the hands of local government and that the public should know what those draft strategies are. That would facilitate public discussion in each borough of the local approach. The process will not work if the mayor's strategy does not become known to the public until it has been settled.
Unless I am misunderstanding this—having heard the Minister's response on the previous amendment, I do not think that I misunderstood last time—it is important that the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, or something like those provisions, should be inserted into the Bill so that the draft strategy is received by the public early on in the process and they can discuss it with the borough council which can then listen to what the public are saying about its approach. Without that, the effect of what the Government are doing will be to squash innovative ways of achieving national targets. That is my concern.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, Amendment No. 118 would apply all the arrangements for publicity and availability of strategies, as set out in Clause 35, also to draft strategies. Amendment No. 126 would require the mayor to send each strategy to the boroughs and the Common Council. Amendment No. 127 would require the GLA to post each strategy on a website which the authority would be obliged to maintain.
After further thought, we remain of the view that applying the requirements of Clause 35 to draft strategies and requiring that strategies be posted on a website is too overly prescriptive. I suspect that there is a difference of view on this. The requirements for consultation on strategies under Clause 34 are extremely thorough and comprehensive. I hope that that answers the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour.
The mayor is required to consult, and such consultation has to give those consulted a proper opportunity to make their views known. It seems extremely likely that the mayor will choose to publish draft strategies as part of complying with his or her consultation duties. If the mayor decides to do so, the requirement is to disseminate the drafts in accordance with the requirements of Clause 35.

531
We believe that ultimately the form of consultation should be for the mayor to decide. We do not think that the Bill should prescribe how that should be done. We remain of the view that a requirement to post strategies on a website is both unnecessary and overly prescriptive. I am sure that the mayor's strategies will be available on a website, but we do not require local authorities generally to make their minutes and other public documents available on a website. There is no case for placing, and there is no need to place, such an additional duty on the GLA.
Perhaps I may speak briefly to the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. These amendments would require the mayor to send his or her annual report to the boroughs and the Common Council and to post it on a website. I am afraid that that, too, is an example of what we view to be unnecessarily prescriptive. The mayor's annual report does not fall into the same category as the strategies, partly for the reasons outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour. Those documents are guides to future action. Boroughs will play an important part in implementing them.
The annual report, however, reports on performance, and although it will certainly be of interest to the boroughs, it will not guide their own activities in the same way as will the strategies and the consultation on, and compilation of, the strategies. Again, I am sure that the mayor will choose to send the boroughs his or her annual report. In the extremely unlikely event that he or she does not do so, the boroughs will any way be entitled to obtain copies of the annual report and all other publicly available GLA documents at a reasonable cost. We do not believe that the mayor should be required to place the annual report or any other publicly available documents, such as minutes of meetings, on a website. We do not agree that that prescription should be laid down in the law. I am quite sure that there will be—
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I feel that I should point out that we have not yet reached Amendment No. 130, which specifically covers this point.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Yes, my Lords, but the point was touched on in debate. I am not intending to offend the noble Lord. Lord Dixon-Smith; perhaps we on these Benches have been guilty of trying to move a little too quickly for him.
Amendment No. 123 requires the mayor to make strategies available at such other places as he or she considers appropriate in addition to the GLA's offices. I think that that covers the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. We want to preserve flexibility so that appropriate decisions can be taken in each particular case.
I hope that I can reassure noble Lords by informing the House that the GLA transition team is currently preparing to start phase two of preparations for the GLA. This is likely to include the implementation of an electronic document management system which will facilitate availability of all published documents on the Internet. Like my children, although not my
532
grandchildren, I am not up to date on such matters, but the Government are certain that the mayor, whoever that may be, will ensure that there is the maximum necessary public access.
In the interests of time I shall not rise to the bait of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, and anticipate the debate on transport matters. I urge the noble Baronesses to withdraw their amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 118 not moved.]
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendments Nos. 119 to 122.
Page 21, line 24, at end insert—
("() The Mayor shall send to the Common Council and to each London borough council a copy of the current version of each strategy mentioned in section 33(1) above.").
Page 21, line 25, after ("of") insert ("the current version or).
Page 21, line 25, leave out ("strategy mentioned in section 33(1) above") and insert ("such strategy").
Page 21, line 26, leave out ("for the appropriate period").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 123:
Page 21, line 27, after ("Authority") insert (", and
(b) at such other places as the Mayor considers appropriate,").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I believe I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move
Lord Lucas: My Lords, if this amendment is agreed to, the relevant section of the Bill will read,
"A copy of each strategy…shall be kept available … by the Mayor for inspection by any person on request free of charge … at such other places as the Mayor considers appropriate."
There are two possibilities here. One is that this matter deals with places over which the mayor has control and the right to place documents and tell people what to do. If that is the case, this amendment is entirely unnecessary. It is giving the mayor power to do something for which he already has power.
The alternative is that this amendment applies to places where the mayor does not have control, such as libraries. Since I presume that this amendment has some function, either we are looking at something which allows the mayor to compel people to keep documents at his behest and therefore to issue instructions to local authorities, tobacconists or anyone else he designates should hold the documents, or he is being asked to do something for which he has no power. If he decides that local libraries should hold the documents and the boroughs say no, he will be in breach of the legislation without the ability to remedy it. However this matter is seen, I am puzzled as to why this amendment is in the Bill.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the point of the amended clause is that the material is available free at appropriate places. It may appear to

533
the noble Lord that it was unnecessary to be so detailed and explicit. However, in the light of the debate on the amendments so far, it became apparent to the Government that people wanted matters to be set out more explicitly in the Bill.
Of course these provisions do not give the mayor power to compel. In my experience in local government—I am sure that the same applies to other noble Lords with such experience—to my knowledge such a matter has never become a difficulty. Even where there is no degree of compulsion people are often only too happy to ensure that material is made available for public consideration.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may point out that she has not answered the question; namely, what function does this amendment serve in the Bill? With this amendment what can the mayor do or what is he or she compelled to do which would not be so if this amendment were not in the Bill? Perhaps the noble Baroness would like to write to me.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I thought that I had made it explicit that the amendment requires him or her explicitly to do what is outlined. In previous debates on this subject we were asked whether it was necessary to add clauses and conditions which some of the other amendments to be dealt with this afternoon appear to indicate. From the Government's point of view we felt that it would be helpful to make that requirement explicit. This amendment does that.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendments Nos. 124 and 125:
Page 21, line 29, after first ("of") insert ("the current version of").
Page 21, line 30, leave out ("during the appropriate period").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 126 and 127 not moved.]
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendments Nos. 128 and 129:
Page 21. line 32, leave out subsection (4). Page 21. line 33, at end insert—
("() Any reference in this section to "the current version" of a strategy or part of a strategy is a reference—

(a) in the case of the spatial development strategy, to that strategy as last published, whether originally or by way of replacement, and to any published alteration thereof for the time being having effect; and

(b) in the case of any other strategy, to that strategy as last published, whether originally or as revised.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendments No. 130:
Page 21, line 33, at end insert—
("(5) The Mayor shall maintain a Greater London Authority web-site on which he shall publish each strategy of the Authority established under section 33 and also publish any other documents that are published in any other way by the Authority.
(6) Nothing in this section affects the restriction requiring confidentiality for information in section 48 (2A) of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I assure the Minister that I tabled this amendment with a particular wish to be helpful to the Government. If they were to accept it or agree its principle and word it in a way which they may consider to be more satisfactory, they may save themselves a deal of bother with a series of amendments which may well refer to the publication of information on the Internet. We have returned to this subject again and again throughout the passage of this Bill.
I thought that my remarks could be relatively brief in that much of the ground that I wished to cover has already been dealt with by my noble friend Lady Miller of Hendon in the course of her remarks. However, there are still things to be said, partly in response to the Minister's reply to previous amendments.
During the course of that reply it was indicated that the Government's view is that to require this type of publication on the Internet would be too prescriptive. We are establishing a new authority with new systems and practices. The whole matter is prescriptive because the Bill prescribes what shall happen. Is this amendment too prescriptive when the whole Bill is prescriptive and when everything that the Government say about the GLA is prescriptive? What is one more piece? We are arguing from a false premise except that if one were cynical one might infer that it is not prescriptive if the Government prescribe it, but it is if the Opposition do so. Perish the thought that we should ever fall into such a narrow way of debating matters.
The noble Baroness also indicated that those who are looking at the way in which the Greater London Authority will work in future will be considering systems for handling documents electronically within the authority. That is nothing new because it has been going on for a long time. For instance, it has long been the practice for documents to be generated on desktop computers and then be sent to printers and so on. The information goes round within authorities and, thankfully, without having to appear on paper until it appears at the end of the process as a document in the hands of a member or a member of the public. That is a good thing.
There is absolutely no technical difficulty at all in that handling system and putting documents into a website available to the public. So there is no possible technical objection to what I have put forward in this particular amendment.
The amendment refers to the need to publish strategies. It goes on to deal with all other documents which the authority would normally publish being made available on the website. For the sake of safety I have added a subsection dealing with restricted

535
information. As drafted, it refers to an amendment tabled by the Government but not yet passed. However, it seemed to be prudent to put it in that way rather than refer hack to the Local Government Act 1972.
There is no reason why this provision should not be on the face of the Bill, except that the Government say that it is prescriptive. The systems exist to make it possible. It would not require the Greater London Authority to do anything novel and is a perfectly reasonable requirement. An indication has been given that this is highly likely to happen in any event. If that is so, I cannot see why the Government cannot accept it on the face of the Bill.
I am prepared to accept that from the point of view of those who sit in courts and make judgments the wording of the amendment may not be wholly satisfactory. However, its principles are good. If the Government could find it in their hearts to accept the principle of the amendment at this point, it would save this House considerable time and anguish debating the matter piecemeal. They could then table their own amendment in a proper form if they consider this not to be so. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I support my noble friend on the Front Bench in his amendment. This morning on the website of the Scottish Parliament I encountered an exceptionally boastful account of a meeting between the Prime Minister, Mr Bill Gates and Miss Wendy Alexander of the Scottish Executive. They were proudly proclaiming what they would do for voluntary organisations in Scotland in providing them with a link across the Internet. Much was being made of that.
If the Government and those who support it in Scotland are so proud of what they do for voluntary organisations in Scotland, it seems reasonable that in such circumstances, where we have a new mayor with statutory strategies which he must spell out, he should be under a statutory duty to provide such details on a website. I see no difficulty with that.
I understand that in the eyes of the Prime Minister I am one of those forces of conservatism or reaction that are so damaging to the country at present. However, I hope that I shall demonstrate, in one bound, that I am far from being an unthinking member of such forces. The Government would be recognising that there is probably greater support for the modernisation of Britain—if that is what is so important— if they accepted my noble friend's new proposal and, in statutory form, placed a requirement on the mayor to post details of his strategies on the Internet.
It simply will not do to resort to the final argument of all Government Front-Benchers—which I know I have resorted to lime and again—by saying, "I regret to say that this proposal is far too prescriptive in its
536
terms". This should be on the face of the Bill. Like my noble friend, I very much hope that it will be accepted by the Government.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am happy to acknowledge that both noble Lords who have spoken are clearly at the cutting edge of technology in these matters, as, indeed, is the Scottish Executive. However, I do not recall the noble and learned Lord proposing that we should prescribe on the face of the Scotland Bill that all documents should be posted on the Internet.
I am happy to go some way with the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and say that I accept the principle. As indicated by my noble friend, the transition team and the mayor's team will undoubtedly post documents on the Internet. However, as to whether that will be on the face of the Bill is a different matter.
The cutting edge of technology is not frozen in time. Perhaps I may draw the attention of noble Lords to the proposal made by my noble friend the Leader of the House about an hour ago. The noble Baroness proposed that we should change a resolution of this House of 1849 relating to the material upon which our Acts are printed. I do not wish to put the leader of this House in 150 years' time in the same position of having to propose a minor amendment to the Bill because the Internet has been overtaken by some other form of technology. Indeed, I suggest that the Internet could possibly be overtaken within 10 years. In that case we would have to provide some other prescriptive form of communication.
The Bill clearly indicates that we should publish the strategy. There is an obligation on the GLA to publish it by the most effective means possible. As of today, one such means would be the Internet. However, I am not able to say that that will be the cutting edge of technology in 10 years yet alone 150 years' time. In that sense it is a little over-prescriptive. However, I believe that we are all agreed that that is exactly what the GLA should do. I would prefer not to see it on the face of the Bill. I hope the noble Lord will accept at least some of my arguments.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I cannot be surprised at the tone of the Minister's response. He says, in effect, "This is good, right and proper. It will happen but we cannot put it on the face of the Bill." That may be all right. I take his remarks as being a pledge that this will happen. If that is the case, we are entirely used to accepting that that will be so. I suppose I shall have to be satisfied with that. I do not believe that the question of what was or was not in the Scotland Bill is relevant. I am bound to say that whether parliamentary Acts are published on vellum or archive paper is also not relevant to this argument. I do not see why an authority such as the GLA should not lead the way, even for the mother of parliaments, dare one say? In the light of the remarks made by the Minister, it may well be that that happens. I hope it does. l n the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.45 p.m.
Clause 36 [Directions by the Secretary of State]:
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 131:
After Clause 36, insert the following new clause—
LONDON PUBLIC HEALTH REPORT
(" .—(1) The Mayor shall prepare and publish a document to be known for the purposes of this Act as the London public health report.
(2) The London public health report shall contain—

(a) information about the state of public health in Greater London;

(b) an assessment of the impact of the Mayor's strategies specified in section 33(1) above on the state of public health in Greater London;

(c) information about the measures which other persons or bodies are to be encouraged by the Mayor to take for the purpose of improving the health of persons in Greater London;

(d) information about the measures which other persons or bodies have encouraged the Mayor to take for the purpose of improving the health of persons in Greater London.

(3) The London public health report shall be published—

(a) in the case of the first London public health report, before the end of the period of three years beginning with the day of the first ordinary election;

(b) in the case of each London public health report subsequent to the first, before the end of the period of four years beginning with the day on which the previous state of the public health report was published.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the current provisions regarding the health of people in Greater London are contained in Clauses 23 and 25 of the Bill. The latter places a duty on the authority to carry out a health impact assessment in the exercise of its powers. The former provides a duty on the mayor to promote improvements in health when considering the various strategies adopted by the GLA. However, in our view those clauses do not go far enough.
In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, stated that the effect of these existing provisions is that health considerations will be a top priority for the mayor in discharging his or her two most important functions: the preparation of strategies and the exercise of the general power.
With the greatest respect, it is difficult to read the Bill in that way. Her argument against going any further, whether in respect of instituting a health strategy or a public health report, was that as the mayor will have no responsibilities in respect of health services and major health service providers in London will be outside the remit of the authority, it would be respectively misleading or wrong and inappropriate to require a separate health strategy or a public health report to be produced.
Frequently, public health has been confirmed as central to the strategies of the Government. London has particular public health issues. In London detentions under the Mental Health Act are almost twice as high as the national average. A study published since the Committee stage of this Bill has shown that although some health indicators such as
538
childhood mortality are good, others such as deaths from ischaemic heart disease and respiratory disease are unacceptably high. Similarly, teenage pregnancies and abortions are exceptionally high in London. Some 13 of the 20 most deprived boroughs in England are in London, with all that that implies for the health of the people living in those areas.
Last year, in his report, Sir Donald Acheson made it clear that health inequalities are linked to conditions in a wide variety of other areas such as housing, education, planning, transport and the environment. We believe that if the mayor does not have a general overview at regional level of the state of public health, we cannot expect London's considerable health inequalities in those areas to be tackled.
Amendment No. 131 is framed in similar terms to the duty to report on the state of the environment in Greater London, as now set out in Clause 309. The amendment is designed to ensure that the mayor regularly takes stock of the state of public health, publishes key indicators in order to measure progress and states the impact of policy actions taken to date.
Information on the health of those who live in London needs to be drawn together for the benefit of Londoners and for the benefit of the other strategies to be developed by the mayor. Such a report would fulfil that.
Amendment No. 545 is complementary to Amendment No. 131. It provides for a mayor's strategy group on public health to be set up and a function of that group would be to provide advice to the mayor on the contents of the London public health report. Now that a single NHS region covers London, it is essential that there is an advisory group for health that can contribute to mayoral strategies in areas other than health as well as on the state of public health.
Without a strategy group and a regular report on London as a whole, the task of achieving a healthier London population will be made immeasurably more difficult. If government in London genuinely is to be joined up at a regional level, it is essential to have a clear duty to report on the state of public health and to have a health strategy group. Having had the summer weeks to reconsider this matter, I hope that the Minister will accept the merit of such arguments.
In Committee we also argued for a health strategy. That is a less radical step, but as the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey—I am sorry not to see him in his place today—said in Committee:
"it corresponds to what is likely to happen and will give a considerable boost to this area of the mayor's work and responsibilities".—[Official Report, 23/6/99; col. 978.]
I very much agree with that. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. I beg to move.
Lord Rea: My Lords, during the whole of my professional life I have been in the business of prescribing. I believe that the prescription contained in this amendment is not too prescriptive. I believe that it will do the patients—the citizens of London—a great deal of good.

539
In supporting the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I emphasise that both the report on public health and the health strategy group proposed in the two amendments will not be concerned with providing health services. They will be the sole responsibility of the National Health Service, co-ordinated by the London regional office of the National Health Service, which I understand—if I am wrong perhaps my noble friend will correct me—will be coterminous with the area covered by the GLA.
As my noble friend knows, the health of the population, particularly of those living in cities, and the consequent burden of the ill-health of the population on the National Health Service, depend to a large extent on factors totally outside the control of a national health service, such as housing, employment, opportunities for exercise. food quality and education, to name only a few. In all those areas the Greater London Authority and the mayor will have great opportunities to make a real difference. The suggested public health report will inform the mayor and the London regional office of the National Health Service of the health needs of Londoners and suggest ways of improving them and that will lie outside the remit of a national health service.
Clause 33 requires the mayor to bear in mind the health impact of his policies, as mentioned by the noble Lord. I am glad of that. If the mayor does not have a public health team to produce the public health report, as suggested in the amendment, and to draw up the strategy required by Amendment No. 545, how will he be able to measure accurately the health impact of his policies? Without a team of public health experts, which need not be very large, the health impact assessment that he is required to make is likely to be marginalised and expressed in general terms.
To describe health impacts one needs to use the expertise of epidemiologists. Such people could make up the group that would draw up the report and the strategy.
An important study by the King's Fund, called Health & the London Mayor, strongly argues for a duty of partnership between the Greater London Authority and the regional office of the National Health Service and that there should be a public health team in the secretariat, headed by a full-time director, whose remit would include liaison with the regional office of the NHS. The arrangements proposed in the two amendments would fulfil that recommendation.
I do not believe that that report by the King's Fund was given adequate consideration when the Bill went through another place. If my noble friend cannot accept these amendments today, I hope that after discussions, which we could arrange, and a full perusal of the King's Fund report, she may return at Third Reading with her own amendments incorporating some of our suggestions.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, I oppose the amendment, conscious that I follow a noble Lord who has considerable expertise in health matters. I do not oppose the amendment because health is not proposed to be within the jurisdiction of the mayor or the
540
Greater London Authority, but because it is my belief that the amendment is unnecessary. In my view, it is inconceivable that any person elected to the office of mayor will not express a view upon many matters, including health, even if such matters are not within his powers as prescribed by the. Bill.
If the mayor of London is dissatisfied with the state of public health within Greater London or its provision, I have no doubt that he or she will comment. It would be an extraordinary political figure, elected with the kind of mandate that we hope that the mayor will have, if he or she did not comment with that kind of authority.
Already there is a plethora of reports on health issues from trusts and authorities within London. Although health is not a function of London boroughs, many such boroughs examine the trends on health in their own areas and produce their own reports. No doubt if the mayor wants to produce a report, he will pull together all the information and publish such a report. As has already been pointed out, he is obliged to monitor the progress of his strategies, including the impact that they have on public health. He will look to the information that is available.
I cannot subscribe to an amendment that suggests that the mayor's office and the Greater London Authority should be staffed so as to cope with health issues.
This Bill is already long on reports and strategies. They are a big feature of this legislation and I have no doubt that more reports and strategies will be produced by the mayor of the greater London authority than this legislation requires. The temptation to produce a "glossy" on almost anything will not be resisted, I am sure. I do not believe that we want another statutory requirement for another report on another subject, however worthy that subject may be.
5 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I support my noble friend and thank the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for adding his name and speaking so powerfully to this and the subsequent amendment.
As has been said, the amendment is not about service delivery and is not, therefore, about "staffing up"—to use the terminology of the noble Lord, Lord Bowness—in quite the way the noble Lord's criticism may have suggested. It is not only arguable, but I believe accepted, including by those who oppose the amendment, that the London authority will have an enormous influence on the state of public health in London.
I became aware of the GLA's role—not through the report to which the noble Lord referred, but through a debate organised by the King's Fund—when that view was expressed extremely forcefully. One only needs to think of a few of the GLA's primary functions —for example, regeneration, which must be about tackling poverty; transport, which includes the effect on air quality and the stress levels suffered by Londoners; as well as looking at the principal purposes as expressed

541
by the Bill in, for instance, Clause 25, which deals with the economic and social development and improvement of the environment—to appreciate that they will all have a profound impact on health.
Clause 25, subsections (4) and (5), contain a duty, in exercising the powers, to have regard to the effect on health and how the powers can best be calculated to promote the improvement of health. In other words, the Government recognise the scope and the opportunities of what they are proposing for London.
The mayor will need information about public health in order to feed it into the other strategies to enable him to carry out his or her obligations with regard to those strategies from the point of view of health. Conversely, the mayor has a duty to be seen to be taking the lead and helping to co-ordinate the approach to these issues. That is not the same as delivering health services but it is a reflection of the mayor's duties.
We talked earlier today about monitoring, and a strategy group would be helpful in monitoring the effect of what the mayor is doing in this area and the implications for public health of other actions. Perhaps I may put one specific question to the Minister: if the Government are not minded to accept these amendment and the provisions do not find their way, in this or a similar form, into the Bill, can the Minister confirm that there is nothing in the Bill to stop the mayor from organising the sort of report which is the subject of this amendment and obtaining advice in the way proposed? In other words, the optional extras that the mayor will undertake can cover the areas to which the amendments are addressed.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, it may be helpful for me to begin by confirming to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that there is nothing in the Bill to prevent the mayor or the assembly from appointing a public health specialist or specialists to the staff of the GLA or having advisory groups. That perhaps also partly answers my noble friend Lord Rea.
These amendments are similar to those tabled by the noble Baroness at Committee stage. They require the mayor to publish a report on the state of public health in London, and to provide for a health strategy group for London to advise the mayor in preparing the report. The group would also advise the mayor on the content of his or her state of the environment report, air quality and ambient noise strategies; matters relating to his powers to promote social development and improvements to the health of Londoners; and the effect of his strategies on the health of Londoners.
The Bill as drafted ensures that health and public health considerations will be a priority of the mayor in discharging his or her two most important functions—the preparation of strategies and the exercise of the general power. For example, in deciding whether or not to exercise the authority's general power, the mayor must have regard to the effect that the proposed exercise of the power would have on the health of
542
Londoners. If the mayor then proceeds to exercise his general power, he or she must do so in a way best calculated to promote improvement in the health of persons in Greater London.
Similarly, in relation to strategies—this answers a further point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—the mayor must have regard to the effect which a proposed strategy or the revision of a strategy would have on the health of persons in Greater London. In addition, where the mayor prepares or revises any strategy, he must include such available policies and proposals relating to the subject matter of the strategy as he considers best calculated to promote improvements in the health of persons in Greater London.
The framework we have put in place is designed to ensure that the improvement of the health of Londoners is a primary concern of the mayor, both in the exercise of the general power and in the formulation of policies and strategies. Each of these strategies must be consistent with one another, and we shall accordingly achieve an integrated approach to health matters.
We cannot, therefore, accept the case for a separate health strategy. The promotion of health improvements will be taken into account in the exercise of key mayoral functions. But, as the mayor will have no executive responsibilities in respect of health services, and major health service providers in London will be outside the remit of the authority, it would be misleading to allow a separate health strategy to be produced. Similarly, we see no need for a requirement to set up a health strategy group to assist in the carrying out of that function, or the other functions set out in the amendment.
In response to the question raised by my noble friend Lord Rea, the boundaries would not be coterminous—in my experience in public life, the answer is always that the boundaries would not be coterminous. The mayor could, of course, publish a health strategy if he chose to do so, and could also convene an advisory group of health experts if he thought that was appropriate. But these are properly matters for the mayor to decide, and it is not appropriate to require him or her to prepare a separate, discrete health strategy.
Under the provisions of Clause 38 of the Bill, the mayor must produce an annual report which must include an assessment of his or her progress in implementing the strategies the Bill requires to be prepared and published. We agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, that the production of such a report will include information about the impact on, and improvement to, the health of Londoners that these strategies will have. We therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply. Before I discuss the terms of her reply and in response to the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, perhaps I may say that I fully understand the desire not to increase the bureaucracy

543
of the GLA or the mayor's office, but paradoxically he seemed to be implying that in practice the mayor would be carrying out those functions. The noble Lord said that he had no doubt that the mayor would express a view—it would be extraordinary if he or she did not—and that there is a plethora of reports produced by local authorities that already carry out that kind of operation. He had no doubt that the mayor would wish to do something similar. So in a sense the amendment goes with the grain. It is difficult to understand why the Minister is so resistant to adopting Amendment No. 131.
We are not proposing a separate health strategy. We on these Benches are very environmental. I suspect that part of the Minister's speech was a little bit recycled from the Committee stage in terms of talking about a health strategy. We have not proposed a health strategy for London in this group of amendments. We made that proposal in Committee; this is a separate proposal. It is about producing a report on the state of public health in London and measuring the indicators to determine whether progress is being made. It is not about a health strategy. The noble Baroness said that it was inappropriate that a health strategy should be set up.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rea, in particular, for his valuable expertise on this subject; it was very useful. I wholeheartedly agree with his comments that this would fulfil in full the recommendations of the King's Fund. It would take it that one step further to ensure that action on public health was fully effective in all the fields that it needs to be—not only in the pure area of NHS health but also in the areas of the mayor's strategies, such as transport, waste, the environment and so on.
Returning to the Minister's remarks, it seems extraordinary that, despite the fact that she said the mayor could, on a voluntary basis, produce a report and set up an advisory committee—all those things are possible—she is resistant to enshrining them in the Bill. It seems far preferable to have a clear mechanism for setting up these two matters, rather than relying on something established on a voluntary basis. At some future date the mayor could be in negotiation with other bodies without the necessary standing that he or she will need if the mayor and the GLA are to be effective in the area of health. If the Government are genuine in saying that health will form a major consideration—I think the Minister said "a primary concern"—surely the setting up of both a statutory advisory group and a regular progress report are vital to ensure that that primary concern is met.
We are not satisfied with the Minister's response—it follows very closely the Government's response in Committee—and in those circumstances we propose to seek the opinion of the House.
5.12 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 13l) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 46; Not-Contents, 112.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Alderdice, L.

McNair, L.

Avebury, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Barker, B.

Methuen, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Calverley, L.

Newby, L.

Carlisle, E.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Clancarty, E.

Razzall, L.

Clement-Jones, L. [Teller]

Redesdale, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Rennard, L.

Dholakia, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Ezra, L.

Russell, E.

Geraint, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Goodhart, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Grey, E.

Taverne, L.

Hamwee, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Hankey, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Thurso, V.

Holderness, L.

Tope, L. [Teller]

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hooson, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Watson of Richmond, L

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Ahmed, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Alli, L.

Haskel, L.

Amos, B.

Hawke, L.

Ampthill, L.

Hayman, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Bach, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Berkeley, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Blackstone, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord

Borrie, L.

Chancellor)

Bowness, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord

Brett, L

Privy Seal)

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Burlison, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Kennet, L.

Christopher, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Laming, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Craigavon, V.

Lipsey, L.

Crawley, B.

Lockwood, B.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Longford, E.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

David, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L

Davies of Coity, L.

[Teller]

Dixon, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Donoughue, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Marsh, L.

Dubs, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Elder, L.

Milner of Leeds, L

Evans of Parkside, L.

Mishcon, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Molloy, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Monkswell, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Nicol, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Filkin, L.

Paul, L.

Gilbert, L.

Peston, L.

Gladwin of Gee, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Glanusk, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Goudie, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Puttnam, L.

Grenfell, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Hanworth, V.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L

545

Rawlings, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Richard, L.

Thornton, B.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Serota, B.

Uddin, B.

Sewel, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Warner, L.

Shannon, E.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Shepherd, L.

Whitty, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Wilkins, B.

Simon, V.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.22 p.m.
Clause 37 [The Mayor's monthly report to the Assembly]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 132:
Page 22, line 2, after ("three") insert ("clear working").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 133, 137, 189 and 191 in this group. I hope that there will be a reasonable consensus on the amendments. They respond directly to points raised in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Carnegy of Lour and Lady Hamwee. They relate to the interval between the mayor submitting his annual report and the assembly considering it at its monthly meeting.
The Bill as drafted provides for an interval of three days. We had already committed ourselves to clarifying that that should be three clear days. The amendments provide for the interval to be three "clear working days". That means that the report will generally be available to the assembly for longer than papers are available before a local authority meeting.
Amendment No. 189 simply tidies up the reference to the mayor's monthly report in the provisions of Clause 44. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, was concerned that the mayor should, if necessary, be able to submit a supplementary report to the assembly covering urgent business. We made clear that we were exploring whether the Bill as drafted would prevent the assembly from considering a supplementary report at a monthly meeting. Amendment No. 191 clarifies that the assembly may consider any issues that are on the agenda. It puts the matter beyond doubt. This is a useful group of amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I welcome this series of amendments, some of which respond to points that I raised in Committee. They clarify matters considerably. My Amendment No. 134A allows us to debate again the matter of written questions to the mayor outwith the normal meeting of the assembly.
This concept was rejected by the Government in Committee—wrongly, I believe. If anyone writes to the mayor, it seems to me that the mayor will reply. It is far more likely that the mayor will be buried under what may be termed informal correspondence from the people of London at large rather than under
546
formal written questions from members of the assembly. Those assembly members will be limited in number—after all, there are only 25 of them; and there are 5.25 million electors, who might all want to express a view on an issue, or indeed 5.25 million separate issues, and decide to write to the mayor.
The reason given previously by the noble Baroness for not accepting such an amendment was that the poor mayor might be so overburdened with written questions from members of the assembly that he would not have time to undertake his official duties. I found that proposition unsatisfactory and therefore return to the matter in Amendment No. 134A. It requires the mayor to respond,
"within a reasonable time"—
the time is not specified—
"in writing to any written question from an Assembly Member about matters relating to statutory functions which are exercisable by him".
That is a reasonable requirement. It places on the face of the Bill formal recognition of what is a common procedure in Parliament. I cannot for one moment believe that it will cause the mayor and his staff a problem as regards administration or workload. I return to the fray and invite the Government to take the question up and answer in an affirmative way. Such a provision would be immensely helpful.
Alternatively, I may be told that I am again being over-prescriptive, or some such euphemism will be used. None the less, I have no doubt that members of the assembly will write to the mayor—but they will do so without the legislative authority of requiring the mayor to answer. That would not be reasonable. In courtesy, he would do so in any event. I do not think that there can be any objection to this proposal. I hope that the Minister may be slightly more generous in his reply than he was on the previous occasion. I have already thanked him for the concessions in the other amendments in this group; I am grateful to the Government. Were he to concede this point, my joy would be doubled.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I should very much like to give extra comfort to the noble Lord. However, I fear that I cannot agree with him completely on this point. In most circumstances, in whatever form an assembly member approaches the mayor, he or she will receive a response. But we are concerned here with the proceedings of a formal meeting and a question in a formal sense. The prescription is not intended to go beyond that. To some extent this strays into the next group of amendments that I shall move. All relate to formal questions. The equivalent would be Written Questions in this House and in another place, rather than general correspondence. Although it is not appropriate to express it in quite the same way, I imagine—although, so far as I am aware, there is no prescription in statute—that Ministers will always respond to a Member of this House or another place. The mayor would do the same if he wished to retain the political support or minimise the political opposition of assembly members.

547
The clause deals with a formal procedure in the same way as with the formal procedure for Written Questions in this House. I therefore urge the noble Lord not to move his amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 133:
Page 22, line 4, after ("three") insert ("clear working").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 134:
Page 22, line 20, at end insert—
("(3A) The Mayor shall—

(a) so far as reasonably practicable, answer any such question orally at the meeting at which it is put, or

(b) if for any reason it is not reasonably practicable to do that, provide a written answer before the end of the third working day following the day on which the question was asked at the meeting,

(subject, in either case, to subsection (4) below).
(3B) For the purposes of subsection (3A)(b) above, the day on which a question is asked at a meeting is—

(a) in the case of an oral question, the day on which the question is first asked at the meeting; or

(b) in the case of a written question, the day on which the question is first raised at the meeting.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wish to move Amendment No. 134 and speak to Amendments Nos. 135, 190, 215, 259 and 260. This group of amendments deals with questions put to the mayor and GLA staff at monthly assembly meetings and the procedures. It goes no wider than that, as I said in reply to the previous intervention.
As I explained in Committee, it has always been the Government's intention that the mayor should be required to answer written as well as oral questions put to him or her by assembly members at their monthly meeting. It has also been our intention that if the mayor is unable to answer all the questions assembly members put to him at the meeting, he should provide written answers to those questions. We have also been clear that written questions and answers, including those given after the meeting, should be publicly available.
Following the points made during our debate in Committee, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith; will welcome the amendments.
Amendment No. 190 specifies that assembly members' power to put questions to the mayor at the monthly meeting covers oral as well as written questions. Amendment No. 134 provides for the mayor to answer oral and written questions orally as far as this is practicable. Where it is not, he or she will be required to provide an answer in writing within three working days.
Amendment No. 259 provides for the GLA staff, who may be required to attend the monthly assembly meetings and answer questions, also to provide oral answers, where practicable, and written answers where not.
Finally, Amendment No. 215 makes express provision for the text of questions and the text of answers to be available for public inspection. The amendments fulfil our commitments on formal written questions. I urge noble Lords to accept the amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am interested in Amendment No. 134, paragraph (3A)(b) where the mayor is asked to answer a written question,
"before the end of the third working day following the day on which the question was asked at the meeting".
Why is the mayor being required to meet that timetable when it has been my experience over the past two years that I cannot in this House obtain an Answer to a Written Question from departments in under three weeks?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I wish to make a similar point. Does the noble Lord agree that what is sauce for the gander should also be sauce for the goose? I ask the noble Lord—casting him temporarily as the goose—whether by Friday evening. I may have a reply to the questions which he was unable to answer on Tuesday.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, it is asking a lot of the mayor to reply within three working days. Does the Minister believe that as a result the answers will tend to be superficial? If the Minister gives an undertaking on the Floor of the House that he will reply to a noble Lord in writing, the noble Lord does not necessarily expect the reply to arrive in such a short time. He would think inadequate thought had been given to it if he received it within three days. The same applies to the mayor. Should there not be greater flexibility in the procedure than we have in the amendment?
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I wanted to make a similar point. Recently I wrote to my bank, taking up a point. I received a letter written about two weeks after mine stating: "You will receive a substantive answer to your letter within seven working days of the date of this letter". That is the kind of nonsense that too tight timetables often provoke: a standard response which says nothing. Sometimes performance standards applied to dealing with customers or consumers make the customer or consumer much more angry, having been brushed off.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we are probably amalgamating general correspondence and questions like those of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, on lengthy delays during legislative periods with formal questions in a formal setting. It is reasonable that some time limit be put, in normal circumstances, on a substantive reply to a formally tabled question. There are occasions, even with formally tabled Questions, when Ministers do not reply within what is normally regarded in this House as an adequate timescale. However, it is reasonable in those specific circumstances for Ministers to say why it happened.
I am slightly hoist with my own petard in what I said in relation to the earlier amendment when the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, tried to draw an analogy

549
between Ministers' responsibilities in this place and the responsibilities of the mayor. But I do not believe there is a read-across to general correspondence. This timetable applies to a formal tabled question at or before the meeting. It is not necessarily general correspondence. In most cases, a formal substantive reply ought to be possible within the three days. If it is not, then occasionally the kind of reply to which the noble Baroness referred may arise. However, in general a substantive reply ought to be possible.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down and with the leave of the House, I am not talking about general correspondence. It is months before one receives a reply to general correspondence. I am talking about a formal question. Today I was promised by a Minister that I would receive a reply. I should be surprised if I received it by Monday. No department in Whitehall replies to a question arising from a formal point made in debate in this House either at Question Time or as part of an Unstarred Question or an equivalent of the assembly meetings within a three-day timetable.
It is wrong to impose that timetable with no flexibility built into it. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I add to her point that we will receive this standard reply saying, "You will receive a substantive reply", that I have never received an acknowledgement that I shall receive such a substantive reply within a three-day period.
It is an unreasonable time-limit to put on the mayor. It might be interesting to put an aspirational limit, but not a rigid legal timetable of three working days.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not sure that it is in order at Report stage for me to reply or for the noble Baroness to come back. The issues raised go wider than the legislation, but I note her point.
5.38 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 134) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 149; Not-Contents, 66.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Boardman, L.

Addington, L.

Borrie, L.

Ahmed, L.

Brett, L.

Alderdice, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Alli, L.

Burlison, L.

Amos, B.

Carlisle, E.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Carter, L.[Teller]

Avebury, L.

Christopher, L.

Bach, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Barker, B.

Clement-Jones, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Berkeley, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Blackstone, B.

Crawley, B.

550

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Marsh, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

David, B.

Methuen, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Dixon, L.

Mishcon, L.

Donoughue, L.

Molloy, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Monkswell, L.

Dubs, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Elder, L.

Newby, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Nicol, B.

Evans of Watford, L.

Peston, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Falkland, V.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Filkin, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Geraint, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gilbert, L.

Puttnam, L

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Glanusk, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Goodhart, L.

Razzall, L.

Goudie, B.

Rea, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Redesdale, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Gray, L.

Richard, L.

Hamwee, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hanworth, V.

Rotherwick, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Russell, E.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Haskel, L.

St. John of Bletso, L

Hayman, B.

Serota, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Sewel, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Shannon, E.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Shepherd, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Simon, V.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord

Strabolgi, L.

Chancellor)

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord

Tenby, V.

Privy Seal)

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Thornton, B.

Kennet, L.

Thurso, V.

Kilbracken, L.

Tope, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Tordoff, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Leigh, L.

Uddin, B.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Lipsey, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Lockwood, B.

Warner, L.

Longford, E.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L

Watson of Richmond, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Whitty, L.

[Teller]

Wilkins, B.

McNair, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Clanwilliam, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Colwyn, L.

Attlee, E.

Cross, V.

Bathurst, E.

Davidson, V.

Biddulph, L.

Donegall, M.

Blatch, B.

Dundee, E.

Brentford, V.

Effingham, E.

Brigstocke, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Burnham, L. [Teller]

Feldman, L.

Cadman. L.

Fookes, B.

Caithness, E.

Hanningfield, L.

551

Harris of Peckham, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Harrowby, E.

Norton of Louth, L.

Henley, L.[Teller]

O'Cathain, B.

Higgins, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

HolmPatrick, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Ironside, L.

Renwick, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Kingsland, L.

Seaford, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Seccombe, B.

Lucas, L.

Selborne, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Lyell, L.

Shuttleworth, L.

Mackav of Ardbrecknish, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Marlesford, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Sudeley, L.

Mersey, V.

Swansea, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Swinfen, L.

Montrose, D.

Tebbit, L.

Morris, L.

Vivian, L.

Munsler, E.

Wilcox, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Wise, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.47 p.m.
[Amendment No. 134A not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 135:
Page 22, line 21, after ("(3)") insert ("or (3A)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 136:
Page 22, line 23, at end insert—

("(b) a functional body,

(c) a member of a functional body, or

(d) a member of staff of a functional body,

except as provided by subsection (5) below.
(5) Where—

(a) the Mayor receives advice from a person falling within paragraph (b), (c) or (d) of subsection (4) above, and

(b) the functional body mentioned in that paragraph is the Metropolitan Police Authority or the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority,

the Mayor is not relieved by subsection (4) above from any requirement to disclose the advice, if or to the extent that the advice falls within subsection (6) below.
(6) Advice given to the Mayor by a functional body falls within this subsection if it has been disclosed—

(a) at a meeting of, or of a committee or sub-committee of, the functional body at a time when the meeting was open to members of the public by virtue of Part VA of the Local Government Act 1972 (access to meetings and documents); or

(b) in a document which has been open to inspection by members of the public by virtue of that Part of that Act.

(7) Any reference in this section to a member of staff of a functional body includes a reference to an officer or employee of that body.
552
(8) In this section "advice" includes—

(a) an expression of opinion; and

(b) an analysis of information.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 136 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 216, 226 and 228. The Government have always been clear that the mayor will need private space in which to consider policy options and take decisions. Therefore we are providing for unique openness generally for the GLA where the mayor is not obliged to disclose advice that he or she receives to the assembly and, through the assembly, to the public.
The Bill as drafted already makes provision for the mayor not to disclose advice from GLA staff. We indicated that we would bring forward amendments to ensure that the provisions of the Bill fully met our intentions by covering also advice from functional bodies and ensuring that advice to the mayor did not become available as a "background paper" as provided under Clause 48 of the Bill. Those amendments are within this group.
The amendments ensure that the mayor is not required to disclose advice that he receives from functional bodies, their members and staff. This is achieved by providing that the mayor is not required to disclose such advice in answering assembly members' questions and that functional bodies, their members and staff are not required to provide evidence or produce documents relating to advice to the mayor under the assembly's power to summon. The amendments also ensure that advice to the mayor does not become available to the public as a "background paper" to a paper or report considered at an assembly meeting. Under the assembly's openness arrangements, "background papers" are open to public inspection.
The amendments also provide that where advice to the mayor from the fire or police authorities has already been made available to the public under the openness arrangements for those authorities, then the mayor's power not to disclose does not apply.
I recognise that those who believe that the usual local authority arrangements for openness should apply to the GLA—as we indicated in the general provision in the earlier parts of the progress of this Bill—will not accept that advice to the mayor should be private. But throughout the Bill we have made our intentions quite clear: that in this respect at least the mayor is more equivalent to Ministers than he or she is to local authority chairs and members. The amendment therefore makes clear that that applies to advice from the functional bodies as well as to advice from GLA staff. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I speak to Amendments Nos. 136 and 226. I regard them as dreadful amendments. Since the first day of Report last Tuesday I have worried that many new amendments have been tabled by the Government. The Minister, being unable to answer probing questions from this side of the House, promised to write. I do not quarrel with that. Nevertheless, he

553
insisted upon moving those amendments. I am concerned that there are now amendments on the statute book which may or may not be good. When we receive the answers they may not adequately cover the problems we raised.
I hope that the Government will return with suitable answers on Amendments Nos. 136 and 226. If they cannot, I hope that they will take the matter away and return at Third Reading with amendments in an improved form. These are serious matters. In introducing Amendment No. 136, the Minister pointed out that such information is not the same as that in the public domain in local government. However, he hoped we understood that that is the way the Government want to deal with the issue.
Amendment No. 136 adds a functional body and a member of a functional body, or a member of staff of a functional body to those people whose advice the mayor does not need to disclose. But under subsection (8), the definition of "advice" has been widened to include a mere expression of opinion—it does not have to be notified—and an analysis of information. That would mean that any report on traffic which goes beyond uncollated traffic-counted data would be called an analysis of information. Almost any report produced within the GLA or the functional bodies could be excluded from public and assembly scrutiny on the ground that it contained an analysis of information.
Clause 51 deals with the assembly's power to require the attendance of witnesses. That complicated and last minute amendment imposes even more restrictions on the information that can be obtained by the assembly whose supposed function is to oversee the exercise of the mayor's powers and duties. Clause 51 deals with the assembly's power to require attendances of witnesses. It exempts members of staff or any of the functional bodies from giving evidence or producing any document relating to advice given by that functional body to the mayor. Fortunately, as the Minister said, this exemption does not extend to advice given by the Metropolitan Police Authority or the Fire and Emergency Planning Authority. And it does not extend to matters which are already in the public domain.
This amendment is tabled by the Government who have proclaimed their devotion to open government and made the word "transparency" a new political cliché. However, to take a topical example, let us suppose that the mayor is given advice about the safety of the signalling system in the transport system operated under the jurisdiction of the Greater London Authority; and the mayor or the functional body chose to ignore that advice. Will no one be able to find out what the mayor knew and when he knew it? It is said that disclosure of advice and opinions might inhibit officials in the conduct of their duties. But public accountability means just that. It means taking responsibility for their actions. This provision includes advice given and received and formal opinions expressed.
554
I do not want to labour the point, but noble Lords will be aware of the wide powers of Select Committees and their ability to extract information from Ministers and their officials. There is no reason why the mayor should be more privileged than the Secretary of State and any government department, with this relevant advice not being made public.
I feel strongly about these two amendments. We are going down a dangerous route. I hope that the Minister will agree to think again. The job of the House of Lords is to scrutinise legislation carefully. Perhaps we did not do our job properly on Tuesday. We allowed amendments to be moved by the Government despite the fact that we had problems with them and were content to accept that answers might come. As my noble friend Lady Blatch said, that might be in two or three weeks' time.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I support entirely my noble friend. It is astonishing that such an illiberal and indiscriminate amendment to provide a blanket exemption on disclosure of information should be proposed at this stage. Under one amendment it does not even have to be disclosed that the information exists. That is close to licensed lying.
Under Amendment No. 226 a member of staff of a functional body is permitted not to give evidence or produce any document which relates to advice given to the mayor. That almost completely negates the point of the inquisition function. If they have given advice to the mayor on a specific matter, or policy relating to that matter, they can claim exemption. The provision does not relate only to individual documents. It does not state that they cannot produce documents which have gone to the mayor. It prevents them from talking about anything to do with advice which has been given to the mayor. As they will be giving advice to the mayor concerning all their functions, as drafted—it may not be the intention of the Government—the provision will enable those functional bodies to refuse to answer almost any question that the assembly might reasonably ask.
Not only is this an illiberal measure, it is badly drafted and badly thought out. It should not be proceeded with at this stage until the Government have considered it further.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I share the concern expressed. Having led a local authority for 13 years, I understand well the mayor's need at times to receive advice known to be given in confidence. Most of us would understand that. The same must be true in government. These proposals go beyond that.
If the mayor believes in a regime of openness, there is probably no problem. However, from time to time, when the mayor and the functional bodies are under pressure, that will not be the case. My fear is that the provisions provide a cloak of respectability behind which to hide, and the temptation to do so is too great.
I understand that it is difficult to achieve the right balance, but I do not believe that we have done so here. I do not know what the Minister will say in reply,

555
although I have a suspicion. But in view of our experience on Tuesday I urge him to withdraw the amendments and allow us to consider more carefully how we can cover this difficult issue in legislation. I do not believe that the proposed way is the correct way and I and I am sure Members on the Conservative Front Bench, shall be happy to discuss how we can do so while preserving the presumption of openness, recognising the realities of a mayor who must sometimes operate in receipt of confidential advice. I hope that the Government will seriously consider our well-intentioned offer to try to achieve a joint objective.
6 p.m.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, I support, my noble friend on the Front Bench and the noble Lord, Lord Tope. I, too, understand, and have argued before the Widdecombe Committee, the desirability of local authorities and their policy leaders having the ability to receive advice in private. There is a difference to be drawn between private and secret advice. We run into difficulties with the suggestions in the amendment because the advice is becoming preciously close to being secret rather than private. I hope that the Government will reconsider the provisions, which in the wrong hands could be dangerous to say the least.
I also believe that we are placing an extraordinary burden on the officers named in the amendments. I understand that they are employees of the authority, even the mayor's own appointments, and not the mayor's own employees. A considerable conflict of interest and loyalty will arise if the measure is enacted as it stands.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, during the debate I realised that we had a recent and tragic example of the kind of incident which might be the subject of advice within the proposed provisions. Transport for London will have responsibility for certain transport services within London. After the accident at Paddington, the Deputy Prime Minister made a careful point of being seen to be as open as possible as to its likely causes. He is to be applauded for being bold in allowing, facilitating and encouraging statements to be made and making a statement himself about the likely causes. It would be ironic, as well as worrying, if in pushing the amendments at this stage the Deputy Prime Minister's own department were thought to be allowing Transport for London and the mayor to act in a different fashion.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, throughout the Bill, we have made it clear that the mayor is a unique creation and he or she will require a great deal of political judgment and advice. In that sense, the mayor must be treated more as a Minister than other local authority officers. We believe that, although it was not appreciated in some quarters in the House, the original clause accepted that the mayor would require private and detailed advice which would not be subject to what is generally an open access of information to the
556
authority. I thought that we managed to convince a few concerned people that this was a potential problem.
Having established that the mayor is in that position, we needed to consider which advice would fall into the capacity of private advice equivalent to that received by Ministers from civil servants. It is not reasonable to confine that to people employed by the authority; it should also extend to people in an equivalent capacity in the functional bodies. It is therefore simply a question of reflecting across from what has been agreed in relation to GLA staff to staff from other authorities who are giving advice to the mayor.
Therefore, I do not agree to take away any suggestions made here because that would be reopening an argument which in principle has been debated. The Government have made their position clear. It is our contention that such advice, whether from functional bodies or the GLA, should not be subject to disclosure provisions.
However, an additional point relates to the definition of advice in subsection (8) in Amendment No. 136 and is repeated in Amendment No. 228. The form of words gives me cause for thinking that we do not have an adequate definition. If I agree to take that away and consider it, I must make it clear to noble Lords that it is only in relation to the definition that I am prepared to look at these provisions again. I do not wish to raise expectations. The other aspects follow on from the way in which we have already regarded the mayor. What was intended in the definitional clauses was to narrow the definition of advice, but, as noble Lords have interpreted it, it could be read to extend that advice into areas which would be dangerous were they covered by the provision.
In general, I am rejecting the request to Lake the provision away and look at it again, but in relation to that subsection and Amendment No. 228 I undertake to think again.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, will he accept that in considering this matter it is necessary to distinguish between policy advice and general political advice and advice which is given and forms the background against which an executive decision is made and implemented?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, before the Minister stands to comment on my noble friend's question, we on this side of the House are pleased that he is prepared to look again at subsection (8) of Amendment No. 136 because the definition of "advice" is much wider. When the Minister was responding to me in the first instance, he talked about political advice and that became rather mixed up with this. The fact is that in Clause 56(1)(a) and (b) it says that,
"not more than two persons as his political advisers; and not more than ten other members of staff",
are excluded. We are not arguing that they should be put back in. Indeed, we are quite happy for that to be in the Bill. We understand about private political advice.

557
However, what we find absolutely appalling at this very late stage is that the Government have come forward and asked for these other exemptions—a functional body, a member of a functional body, or a member of staff of a functional body. Again, I do not wish to labour yet another point with the Minister, but this Bill has been through the other place. It went through all its stages there and at no stage was that provision found to be something which ought to be brought into the arena. Moreover, it has been through the Committee stage in this House. Therefore, if we let this amendment pass today because the noble Lord will not withdraw it, even if he takes out subsection (8) which deals with advice, it means that advice from any of these three bodies, whatever its description, will be on the statute book and will be exempted in the same way as private political advice. That is improper. I really think that the Minister ought, once again, to take a step back and reconsider this point. It is a very serious matter.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, perhaps he could reply to the question that I posed concerning Amendment No. 226. Does the phraseology "which relates to" in the amendment imply that members of functional bodies will, in effect, not have to reply to any questions presented to them by the assembly?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I have indicated that I am prepared to take one step backwards, but I am not prepared to take several steps backwards. The intention is absolutely clear: we wish to provide the mayor with the ability to take advice from senior members of staff who will exist in the functional bodies as well as in the GLA. The distinction between political advice and policy advice is not one which is made in that sense for Ministers, and we do not intend to make it here. I thought that I had clearly indicated to the House that I believe there is a problem about the definition in subsection (8) of this amendment and also in Amendment No. 228. However, I am not convinced by the arguments relating to the general principle of extending such advice from officials for the GLA to those from the functional bodies. I believe that that extension is both sensible and logical; and, indeed, flows from what we said in relation to the principal matter here.
As regards the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, I have to confess that, although I have received advice on it, I am not entirely clear that it clarifies the matter. Therefore, if he will indulge me, I am prepared to write to him—it is to be hoped—within three days.
I am in a slight difficulty here because I do not wish to withdraw these amendments. I feel strongly that they should stand. However, I should like to look again at subsection (8) of Amendment No. 136 and Amendment No. 228. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 136 to enable me to do so. But, if I return with the rest of it intact, I think noble Lords are clear as to where I stand on these matters.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 137:
Page 22, line 23, at end insert—
("() For the purposes of this section, a day is a working day unless it is—

(a) a Saturday or Sunday;

(b) Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, Maundy Thursday or Good Friday;

(c) a day which is a Bank Holiday in England under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971; or

(d) a day appointed for public thanksgiving or mourning.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.15 p.m.
Clause 38 [Annual report by the Mayor]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 138:
Page 22, line 31, at end insert—
("() a statement of any targets for the time being in force under section 33(8A) above with respect to the implementation of those strategies and an assessment of the progress made by authorities involved in the implementation of those strategies towards achieving those targets;").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 138A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 138, not moved.]
[Amendment No. 139 not moved.]
Clause 39 [The annual State of London debate]:
[Amendment No. 140 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 141:
Page 23, line 8, leave out from ("meeting") to end of line 9 and insert ("under this section (in this section referred to as a "State of London debate") which shall be open to all members of the public.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 142 not moved.]
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 143:
Page 23, line 9, at end insert—
("() The form of, and procedure for, a State of London debate shall be such as the Mayor may determine after consultation with the Assembly, but must be such that there is an opportunity for members of the public to speak.
() The power to determine the form of, and procedure for, a State of London debate includes power to appoint a person to preside.
() Any person may be appointed to preside at a State of London debate, whether or not he has any connection with the Authority.
() A member of the public who attends or speaks at a State of London debate shall do so subject to and in accordance with the procedure for the State of London debate.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 144 and 145 not moved.]
Clause 40 [People's Question Time]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 146:
Page 23, line 22, leave out from ("meeting") to end of line 23 and insert ("under this section (in this section referred to as a "People's Question Time") which shall be open to all members of the public.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 148 and 149. I hope that we can deal with these amendments reasonably quickly. During the debate on the clause in Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was concerned that legislation should not require the event to be called by a particular name and she has tabled an amendment today to address that concern. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, was also concerned that the clause did not specifically provide for people to have a right to ask questions and was generally quiet, if not silent, on the procedure for and the form of the event.
We have listened to these concerns and, as with the State of London debate, we have brought forward amendments to rectify them. Amendment No. 146 removes the requirement to use the name "People's Question Time", but leaves it as a defined term in the Bill solely because it indicates what the event is all about. Amendment No. 148 (and the consequential amendment, Amendment No. 149), places a duty on the mayor to decide the form and procedure for the event following consultation with the assembly. It clarifies that the purpose of the event is for the public to question the mayor and assembly members. It also enables someone not connected with the authority to be appointed to chair the event.
I believe that these amendments directly address the concerns raised in Committee. Therefore, I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Serota): My Lords, in calling this amendment I should point out to the House that, if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 147.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, when the matter was discussed in Committee, the Minister looked somewhat crestfallen because a measure that was clearly intended to be, and was, blatantly populist was criticised for not going far enough. In such circumstances, we were confident that he would return, at our urging, with some amendments to the provision—indeed, we are grateful for those changes. However, the fundamental point that we made remains unanswered and the position is still unsatisfactory.
If noble Lords look again at Clause 37, which deals with the monthly meetings and the attendance of the mayor at those monthly meetings of the assembly, they will see that subsection (3) states quite clearly that the mayor shall not only attend that meeting but also,
"answer questions put to him at any such meeting by Assembly members about matters in relation to which statutory functions are exercisable by him".
Indeed, the Minister has been successful in having carried an amendment in this House earlier this afternoon which will extend that duty incumbent upon him in such a way that, if he is unable to answer the question at the meeting, he is under a duty to take the matter away and, if it is reasonably practical, answer it within three working days. I think that that general
560
framework is desirable. Therefore, should the mayor fail to discharge that clear statutory duty imposed upon him, it will be a matter for the courts to consider.
However, in sharp contrast, I turn to the "People's Question Time", which is as much a statutory event as the mayor's attendance at the monthly meeting of the assembly. All we find in Amendment No. 148 is:
"The purpose of a People's Question Time is to afford an opportunity to members of the public to put questions to the Mayor and Assembly members and to enable the Mayor and Assembly members to respond".
The contrast could not be sharper. First, there is no restriction on the questions that may be put to the mayor or to the members of the assembly. He might be asked for his view on who is going to win the cup: Tottenham Hotspur or Arsenal? If there is an anticipation of a tricky meeting, the mayor might be perfectly happy to waste half an hour discussing that matter.
I suggest that the appropriate way to proceed is to impose upon the mayor exactly the same statutory duty to answer questions as is imposed upon him under Clause 37. I see no reason whatever why the citizens of London should be treated in a second-class fashion if in relation to assembly members the mayor is bound to answer the questions put to him. If the Minister and the Government seriously believe that this is a useful extension of participative democracy, it would seem to me to be highly desirable that that change should be made. I have to express my disappointment to the Minister that he has not gone that bit further. I ask him to reflect on the matter again and to consider doing just that.
That is not the only problem relating to this provision. Under its terms, all that is incumbent upon the mayor is to hold and attend the meeting twice every financial year. There is absolutely no indication given of when, where and what size the meeting is to be. Is it to be for half an hour in the back room of a pub just before closing time, or is the mayor to take over the Albert Hall, Earl's Court or Wembley? If he were to take any of those three locations, I suspect that he would find it difficult to get even 1 per cent of his electorate present at those meetings.
I am not suggesting that any of those standing for election as mayor would resort to such grubby tricks, but I find nothing in the proposed legislation which would prevent them from resorting to some restricting approach. There would be no duty on the mayor to answer those questions.
There is a satisfactory modernising way in which to approach the matter. It might most simply he resolved—if the Government and the Minister do not wish us yet again to be too prescriptive—by trying to determine exactly what a meeting is. In common parlance, I believe that it is the idea that one or two people are physically present. However, it occurred to me that there must be few companies in this country now which do not have within their articles of association a provision that a meeting can be conducted electronically or telephonically.

561
It would seem to me to allow far greater access for the people of London to their mayor and the opportunity to ask him questions if a duty to have a phone-in was imposed upon him. Hundreds of thousands of people would be able to listen and a wide range of questions could be put to the mayor. That would seem to be a desirable way in which to approach the problem. I am contemplating that we might try to firm up this proposal by making just such a suggestion. However, as the Minister clearly does not wish us to be too prescriptive, I should be grateful if he would tell me whether the idea of having a meeting at least partially conducted in a phone-in fashion—that is to say, with communication by radio telecommunications to the public, with questions coming from them—could be contained within the term "meeting".
I appreciate that the Minister may not feel that he can provide an answer to me instantly, but if the Government consider that the term "meeting" would allow for a phone-in to be utilised as a way of getting the views and questions from the public and answers from the mayor, I should be grateful if he could let me know within three working days or whatever, but certainly in sufficient time to enable me to reflect on the matter before Third Reading.
If the Government are not simply playing the populist game with this provision but genuinely wish to extend participation in the democratic process, I urge the Minister to give the matter rather more serious consideration than seems to have been the case today. I hope that he can respond now to some of the points I have made, although I recognise that there are others on which he may wish to write to me.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I quite like the idea which the noble and learned Lord expounded of widening people's question time in the sense of having a phone-in instead of people having to be physically present. That would obviously enable people who are disabled or housebound to take part in the process.
I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord would agree, if he is going to put forward the proposal at Third Reading, to take it one stage further and consider having an electronic method of question time whereby the people would submit questions to the mayor which would then be placed on a website, so that they would be available not only to those who happened to be listening at the time but to anyone else who managed to access that particular website.
If that was done, it would form a permanent record which would be available for subsequent inspection. It would be available to a much wider circle within London than just anyone who happened to be tuned in at a particular moment or those who were present in the Albert Hall. If we want to widen participation, we must use modern technology and the web is the ideal way of doing that.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I rise to support my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie. He has raised a number of anxieties which I felt. Indeed,
562
he refers to the most important one as being the unrestricted nature of the questions which the public is able to ask. It might be perfectly reasonable for a Member of Parliament to ask the Prime Minister at Prime Minister's Question Time what he had for dinner the previous evening, because that question could reasonably lead to a supplementary question about food standards, or indeed about foreign affairs, depending on with whom the Prime Minister might have had dinner and the state of the MP's knowledge. However, that is an appropriate parliamentary practice.
I do not believe that the Minister brought forward this amendment to promote that sort of practice. I had understood that the purpose of the people's question time was to enable the mayor to be cross-examined by the public, in public, about the way in which he is undertaking his statutory duties. If that was not the case, I am under a misapprehension and so are we all. If that is the case, I suggest that a little more thought about this amendment is required.
The amendment goes on to say that the form and procedure for the people's question time shall be such as the mayor may determine after consultation with the assembly. That would permit the mayor to take up the idea of a telephonic question time, or, indeed, a public question time in a hall, both with the public present and with live and telephone questions coming in at the same time, and, indeed, the use of the wonderful website which we have not been allowed to have—at least not on the face of the Bill.
There are still quite a few matters to be answered. One question which arises out of them is that while a completely ad-lib form of questioning may be what is intended, the question time would probably work rather better if the questions are required to be submitted—even if they are telephonic questions—say, half an hour in advance, so that someone has some opportunity to reflect on what the actual situation is. For the mayor to be questioned about his performance and the way in which he is handling his statutory duties with no notice of what the question might be would seem to me to be extremely difficult. In considering the form and procedure of the people's question time, the mayor would be almost bound to put some sort of restriction on the way in which questions are put, and a completely ad-lib proceeding seems to me to be unlikely to be permitted.
However, that of course raises another point; that is, if questions are submitted in advance, presumably the question time will need to be time limited. One cannot have an ad lib number of questions with the poor mayor, his staff and, indeed, the audience sitting in a hall while the questions keep flowing. I well remember that many years ago I was immensely grateful to a school caretaker. We had a huge public meeting on the matter of a school reorganisation. It was held in the school's sports hall. Those matters are always highly controversial and the audience were minded to participate and did so with great effect. That meeting would have gone on for half the night. The school caretaker was a wise old bird. After the meeting had been going for an hour, he switched off the heating. It

563
was a very cold night in the middle of January. The meeting ended half an hour later and everybody was happy. That is quite remarkable.
We do not want that kind of thing to happen, but the point remains about what will happen to the questions that have not been answered by the time the session ends. believe that that needs some thought. Again, that leads us to the business of written answers, particularly if the questions are written ones. I may be accused of trying to extend the duties and obligations of the mayor's secretarial staff in an unreasonable way, but I do not believe that that is the case.
I believe that what has been said is sufficient to suggest that the amendment is a good one, and one which we would welcome in principle. However, it requires a little more thought and I hope that in his response the Minister will indicate that he might give the matter perhaps just that little more thought.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am continually impressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, and the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, in trying to outflank the Government both as regards populism and modernisation. I am not sure that they have entirely succeeded today. Nevertheless, I understand where they are coming from.
The event, whatever one calls it—and for the moment we still call it "People's Question Time"—is intended to be an innovation in participation. The intention is that it should open up the mayor and the assembly to the people of London. Clearly, it could be run in a partially electronic way. People could phone in, particularly the kind of people to whom the noble Lord was referring. The event will probably be broadcast, either in part or possibly totally. It is intended to open up the whole process.
However, we do not wish immediately to close it down again by prescribing here precisely how the event will be dealt with. Clearly, there have to be some procedures. The amendment provides that the mayor, after consulting the assembly, shall draw up some procedures. After the first occasion that the question time is held, it is possible that it will be found that something is wrong with the procedures and that they will need to be altered. Let us be a little open-ended about this, but not so open-ended as the noble Lord implied in terms of meetings which never close. Incidentally, this meeting occasionally becomes rather open-ended and wide-ranging. I was told that during the debate on this amendment the annunciator was switched off. It may well be that the heating will go fairly soon.
We have to be somewhat relaxed about this matter. The principle is here, and I believe that everyone has now agreed that something in this area is a useful extension of democratic participation. The first set of procedures which are followed may not. work; indeed, the second set may not work; but we shall learn from it. However, if we lay down Standing Orders here, we
564
cannot then amend them. I hope we may leave that to the mayor, the assembly and the people of London to sort out.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I am grateful to him for what he has said. He seems to me to have been positive and constructive and I understand why he does not want, in the course of this Bill, to lay down in every detail what is to be the format of the meeting. Interestingly, if I heard correctly, the noble Lord said that he did see that this provision would allow for a telephonic and/or a broadcasting element. If I have that assurance from the noble Lord, I believe that we shall have made considerable progress.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, on both points I said "could", and it is up to the mayor and the assembly to decide how to use that event. If I were a candidate for mayor, I would make that promise. However, from my knowledge of the existing candidates for mayor, they are never very shy of an audience and the bigger the audience the better. I suspect that that will be the view of the mayor. But I do not believe it is for your Lordships—and it is certainly not for me —to be precise as to the procedures which should be used. Therefore, I believe that in this case we can be reasonably open-ended.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 147 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 148:
Page 23, line 23, at end insert—
("() The purpose of a People's Question Time is to afford an opportunity to members of the public to put questions to the Mayor and Assembly members and to enable the Mayor and Assembly members to respond.
() The form of, and procedure for, a People's Quest ion Time shall be such as the Mayor may determine after consultation with the Assembly.
() The power to determine the form of, and procedure for, a People's Question Time includes power to appoint a person to preside.
() Any person may be appointed to preside at a People's Question Time, whether or not lie has any connection with the Authority.
() A member of the public who attends or speaks at a People's Question Time shall do so subject to and in accordance with the procedure for the People's Question Time.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 148, Amendment No. 148A:
Line 7, leave out from ("Mayors') to end of line and insert ("and Assembly shall agree").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the amendment in the name of my noble friend and myself. It is fairly self-explanatory. Clause 40 requires the mayor and the assembly to hold and attend the question time, by whatever name it is now to be known. The purpose of the amendment is to give the assembly the right to agree with the mayor—not simply to be consulted and perhaps ignored by him—the form and procedure of the People's Question Time,

565
which the assembly members themselves are required to attend. I believe the amendment is reasonable, common sense, fairly small and one which I am confident the Minister is about to accept. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord's confidence in me. We have just talked about the matter being open-ended. We have said that the mayor should consult the assembly and, it is hoped, reach agreement with the assembly. However, on previous amendments we have indicated that that may be a situation where the mayor and the assembly are not in the same political arena and may not be agreed on everything. Certain procedures may favour the mayor more than the assembly and vice versa. In those circumstances, if the mayor has to agree with the assembly, the whole event may never happen. Therefore, unless one builds in an arbiter as to who decides, the noble Lord's amendment may lead to deadlock. One hopes that agreement would be reached but, if not, the mayor would decide the procedure after consulting fully and taking on board the views of the assembly.
Lord Tope: My Lords, the Minister has indeed disappointed me. I cannot share his deep pessimism that a reasonable mayor and a reasonable assembly cannot even agree the form and procedure of an event which will be of such public interest and such excitement as the People's Question Time. I recognise that I shall not convince the Minister; his pessimism will rule. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 148A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 148, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 148 agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 149:
Page 23, line 25, leave out ("and") and insert (", after consultation with").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 150 not moved.]
Clause 41 [The Deputy Mayor]:
[Amendments Nos. 151 and 152 not moved.]
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 153:
Page 24, line 1, leave out ("Chair") and insert ("Chairman").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 153, I wish to speak to the series of identical amendments to Clauses 41, 42, 43 and 44. Those amendments all call for the deletion of the word "chair" and for its replacement by the word "chairman". I wish to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bach, who, on Tuesday, in answer to a question, spoke about the "chairman". I understand—I very much hope that my information on this is correct—that the noble Lord, Lord Bach, is a great-nephew of that wonderful Tory lady, Emmeline Pankhurst. I
566
hope that that information is correct because only this week she has been named as the "woman of the century".
After I spoke to this series of amendments in Committee, a number of people were kind enough to congratulate me on my speech which, they told me, they found humorous. Of course I was grateful for the compliments, but I fear I must have struck the wrong note. I believe that this is a serious subject. When I last spoke on the subject, I mentioned my personal credentials in supporting women seeking to participate in public and political affairs. Many other Peers on all sides of the House have done likewise. I should like to pay tribute to them all. Together, and in our separate ways, I believe that we have made a difference. The status of women in public and political life has increased. More women are being encouraged to take their place in public service, or perhaps I should say that less women are being discouraged from trying to make their contribution by the prejudice that formerly we had to face.
Speaking as sometimes I do to schools and audiences of young women, I find that nowadays they too are less worried about being sidelined on the grounds of their gender. However, the point is that it is hard enough to break down the rules of prejudice and deeply ingrained chauvinism without facing the additional hurdle of being dismissed as "just one of those feminists".
I have no objection to being described as a feminist. In fact, I am proud to be one. The Oxford English Dictionary defines the word as,
"An advocate of women's rights on the basis of equality of the sexes".
I chose as one of the supporters on my coat of arms the representation of a suffragette. But the popular image of a feminist, the picture of all of us engaged in the advocacy of women's rights, is of some shrill bra burner who insists that all men are beasts and maybe even potential rapists. This image is caused partly by some of the extreme nonsense that some of our sisters indulge in, including the abuse of the English language.
The English language enjoys an advantage not shared by any of the Latin or Germanic languages by not having male and female nouns. The invention of alien words like "chair" instead of the word "chairman" introduces connotations of strife where there is none. A number of female Peers—for that is what we are, not Peeresses—who spoke in the previous debate recounted how, like myself, they had been perfectly happy to be the chairmen of the various organisations that they had "chaired", to use the noun that seems to have become the shorthand for "presided over". Now we find in use tortured expressions like "humanity" being used, instead of the perfectly innocuous "mankind".
I am sure that some noble Lords will remember discussions that took place after the first woman High Court judge was appointed. Was she to be addressed as "My Lord" or "My Lady"? Was she to be "Mrs

567
Justice So-and-so"? Thank goodness that the barbaric "Ms" had not then crossed the Atlantic, so that we do not attach that title to unmarried lady judges.
However, what has crossed the Atlantic is the concept of political correctness. That is an attempt to impose an ideology by the distortion of everyday language. If you say this thing, you are a racist; if you say that thing, you are a xenophobe; if you say the other thing, you are a chauvinist. I believe that political correctness is a kind of verbal fascism which regards saying the right thing as being much more important than doing the right thing.
When Judge Henry Pownall, QC, retired from the Old Bailey as recently as 30th September, he said to his legal colleagues—his wise words are worth quoting—
"I find it sad, even disturbing that political correctness in all its horrid forms is creeping into our everyday lives. There are those who will find prejudice around every corner. They find it where none exists, and they find it where none is intended. It is time that somebody said there is none of it here in this building, in any of us".
The building he was referring to was of course the Old Bailey, but I would like to echo his eminently sensible remarks in relation to the Palace of Westminster, and I invite your Lordships to do the same.
This House is having to participate in an upheaval of the British constitution. Let us not at the same time, for no reason whatsoever, aid and abet the unnecessary desecration of the English language. I agree that language is a living and changing thing.
"The tongue that Shakespeare spake",
would be totally incomprehensible to any of us who were somehow transported back in time. But we do not have to import into what is still called "the mother tongue" transatlantic horrors like my own particular bugbear, the phrase "at this moment in time", instead of just saying "now".
Far from advancing the cause of the status of women, calling people "chair" instead of "chairman" provides ammunition to those who still try to hold back the tide: ammunition in the form of the weapon of ridicule.
Parliament, wisely, in 1889 passed the Interpretation Act which said in Section 1(1) that in,
"this Act, unless the contrary intention appears,—
(a) words importing the masculine gender shall include females".
It was not until 1978, almost 90 years later, that in the interests of sexual equality Parliament enacted the reverse, that,
"words importing the feminine gender include the masculine",
although Section 61 of the Law of Property Act 1925 had made a similar provision in respect of legal documents. There is a story, no doubt apocryphal, that a trainee lawyer once included a phrase in a document he was drafting, "In this deed, male embraces female".
Even if any noble Lords actually believe that the word "chairman" may have some gender connotation, Parliament in its wisdom 110 years ago ensured that "male" automatically embraces "female". There is therefore no need to inflict this verbal monstrosity onto the statute book.
If noble Lords believe that I am genuinely not making any political point here except to try to ensure that the cause of the advancement of the status of women is not impeded by giving our opponents an opportunity to belittle that cause, then I urge your Lordships to support this series of amendments and to remove this nonsensical expression from such an important Bill. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Stewartby: My Lords, I should like to say a few words in support of my noble friend. I am very glad that she has moved the amendment. It is absurd to use the word "chair" for a person. I do not like being called a chair. It is something for other people to sit on.
I should be very surprised if lady chairmen like being called "chairs", especially since they often have four straight and rather ugly legs. More seriously, for those who feel squeamish about such matters, why cannot we use the term "chairperson" rather than "chair"? "Chair" is a nonsense because it means something else. The word refers to the seat being occupied by a chairman or a chairperson. I wish we could move away from the ridiculous use of the word "chair" for people instead of things.
I hope, if not for this legislation then in the future, that we can consider whether "chairperson" might not be quite so bad. I cannot say that I welcome it because I prefer the old term "chairman". However, at least "chairperson" makes sense, whereas "chair" does not.
Lord Monson: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, has, as always, done us a great service in so ably introducing this very sensible and welcome group of amendments. Given that they are so sensible, I do hope that the Government will accept them. If not, then I trust that the Opposition will divide the House. As the noble Baroness said when she introduced the amendment, this is not a laughing matter. Rather, it is a serious matter.
The amendments not only strike a blow against the tyranny of political correctness, but, as the noble Baroness said, they also strike a blow against the increasingly appalling misuse of the English language.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not sure which Minister is to respond to this series of amendments, but I suspect that it will be the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington. I have reread several times her response to similar amendments at art earlier stage. I find it difficult to find any intellectual defence for the Government's view.
Perhaps I may join others in saying that I thought that these amendments were introduced brilliantly by my noble friend Lady Miller and with impeccable use of the English language. Indeed, she did the language a great service as well as putting up an extremely

569
intellectually valid defence for appealing to the Government to change the very ugly term "chair". I must advise my noble friend Lord Stewartby that I do not quite agree even with the use of the term "chairperson". However, there is the marginal improvement that that term at least refers to a human being. The terms "chairperson" and "chair" are wholly ugly terms and, as my noble friend said, they do no service to the advancement of the interests of women in public life.
In Committee, I referred to a number of clauses in the Bill in which the word "chairman" is used. I referred, for example, to Schedule 14; Clause 20(1)(a); Schedule 21; Clause 269; and Schedule 23. Those provisions refer back to the London Regional Transport Act 1984, the Police Act 1996 and the Local Government Act 1985. In response, the noble Baroness said that because those were references back to other Acts, the proposed change could not be made. But here we are in this Bill amending those Acts and repealing sections of them. Perhaps I may refer to page 121 and Clauses 217 and 218. Indeed, Clause 217 states that Section 40 of the London Regional Transport Act 1984 shall cease to have effect, but Clause 218 then proceeds to use the term "chairman" in relation to the chairman of the London Transport Users' Committee.
It is no argument to say that because a term has been used previously, it must inevitably be used again but then to change the word to "chair" for the rest of the Bill. Equally, if this opportunity is being taken to use more elegant language from past statutes, it seems to me that it would be consistent to continue to use that terminology throughout the Bill.
There is no defence for the Government's proposed language. It is politically correct. Old Labour does live on in this sense. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, will feel able to respond to what I thought was a most elegant speech from my noble friend Lady Miller in an attempt at least to have consistency in the Bill while also reintroducing elegance of language.
Lord Harmsworth: My Lords, do the Government think that there should be an interpretation Bill, intimating that sometimes inanimate objects refer to human beings?
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I am tempted, but I shall not say anything except that I still support the language of these clauses as firmly as I did when they were debated at such length in Committee.
The Earl of Bathurst: My Lords, I wonder whether either of my noble lady friends can say what the objection would be to saying "chairwoman". My
570
noble friend Lady Blatch did not mention that. She expounded the good reasons for saying "chairman"; but why not "chairwoman"?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may respond to that—
Noble Lords: No!
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am sorry, but we are on Report and we had a very lengthy debate on this in Committee. It is not possible for noble Lords to speak more than once—
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, again with the leave of the House—
Noble Lords: No!
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am sorry, but the noble Baroness—
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, may I ask for advice from the Clerk of the House as to whether it is in order to respond to a question?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I am sorry but it is not in order at Report stage—
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House—
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: Well, go and ask the Clerk of the House, but please do not take the Floor of the House when the matter is quite clear. The noble Baroness is much more experienced in the ways of this House than are many of us, including myself, and knows that at Report stage noble Lords do not speak more than once on an amendment.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, this lengthy series of amendments seeks to amend every single reference to "chair" and "deputy chair" of the assembly. The Greater London Authority will be a radical, new style of governance. As one small part of that modernising agenda, we decided to update the terminology used to refer to the presiding officers of the assembly to the usage which is now recognised by the Oxford English Dictionary.
Of course, it is true that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said, previous legislation uses the term "chairman". In fact, where this Bill modifies earlier Acts or makes provision in the context of earlier legislation, as the noble Baroness noted, the term "chairman" does appear. It would be ridiculous—and we do not believe that it would be either practical or necessary—to amend all previous legislation from beginning to end in order that that legislation should be consistent with this. I understood the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, to ask why we were not amending all that legislation. Where we are using quotations from and references to legislation which has already been enacted and which uses the term

571
"chairman", we are not seeking to change that usage. Here, we are merely ensuring that where this legislation refers to the Greater London Authority, a more modern usage, recognised by the Oxford English Dictionary, is used.
I personally find it offensive to be described as "verbally fascist" for wanting to recognise that language evolves and changes. It is matter of opinion; it is a matter of judgment; it is a matter of taste. I hardly believe that those of us who came to recognise that generations younger than us had seen fit to seek to change the language should be accused of being verbal fascists. Referring to others who do similar things as "verbal fascists" does, by implication, in my understanding of the use of—
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I did not accuse anybody of being verbally fascist; I said that I believe that political correctness is a sort of verbal fascism—
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: It is the same.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: No, my Lords, it is not the same. I went on to say that political correctness regards saying the right thing as being more important than doing the right thing. I would certainly never call anybody verbally fascist and if the noble Baroness interpreted what I said in that way, I of course apologise; but I did not mean it that way and I do not think that I said it either.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, we shall both read Hansard to see what was said. In the light of her explanation, I am only too happy to recognise that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, did not intend to be offensive.
We could debate this for a very long time, but I say simply this. I was convinced of the need for a change of language following the period when I used to travel between the north and south of England and had constantly to change my language when I reached Crewe because the north referred to "chairman". I was "chairman" of Lancashire County Council and our chief executive officer explained that the legislation setting up the county council and the office of chairman referred to "chairman" so that was the word that had to be used. However, I also remember when a small child in a primary school playground asked me, "How can you be the chairman of Lancashire County Council?" That made me think about use of language. I think about it because if a child visualises a man every time the word "chairman" is used, there is perhaps a case for changing the language.
I can say little else. I fear that no one will have their mind changed on this. In the light of what I have said, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, will agree to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness that nobody is likely to change their mind on this matter. I feel very strongly about it. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
6.59 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 153) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 71; Not-Contents, 119.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Lyell, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Attlee, E.

Marlesford, L.

Biddulph, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Blatch, B.

Mishcon, L.

Boardman, L.

Monson, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Montrose, D.

Brentford, V.

Morris, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Mountevans, L.

Burnham, L. [Teller]

Moynihan, L.

Byford, B.

Munster, E.

Carew, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Norrie, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Norton of Louth, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Colwyn, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Courtown, E.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Denham, L.

Rawlings, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Rennell, L.

Dundee, E.

Renton, L.

Elton, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Feldman, L.

Seaford, L.

Fookes, B.

Seccombe, B.

Selborne, E.

Gray, L.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Stewartby, L.

Henley, L. [Teller]

Sudeley, L.

Higgins, L.

Swinfen, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Howe, E.

Ullswater, V.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Vivian, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Weatherill, L.

Liverpool, E.

Wilcox, B.

Lucas, L.

Windlesham, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Wise, L.

Luke, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Ahmed, L.

Crawley, B.

Alderdice, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Alli, L.

David, B.

Amos, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Dixon, L.

Avebury, L.

Donoughue, L.

Bach, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Barker, B.

Dubs, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Elder, L.

Berkeley, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Blackstone, B.

Evans of Watford, L.

Borrie, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Bragg, L.

Falkland, V.

Brett, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Burlison, L.

Filkin, L.

Carlisle, E.

Gilbert, L.

Carrick, E.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Goudie, B.

Chandos, V.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Christopher, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Hamwee, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Hanworth, V.

573

Hardy of Wath, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Puttnam, L.

Haskel, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Hayman, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Razzall, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Rea, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Rennard, L

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord

Russell, E.

Chancellor)

Serota, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Sewel, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord

Simon, V.

Privy Seal)

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Stern, B.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Kennet, L.

Strabolgi, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Lipsey, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Longford, E.

Thornton, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Thurso, V.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Tope, L.

[Teller]

Tordoff, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

McNair, L.

Uddin, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Warner, L.

Molloy, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Monkswell, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Nicol, B.

Whitty, L.

Patel, L.

Wilkins, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.10 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 154 to 159 not moved.]
Clause 42 [Functions]:
[Amendments Nos. 160 to 165 not moved.]
Clause 43 [Appointment]:
[Amendments Nos. 166 to 171 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 172:
Page 24, line 43, at end insert ("except as provided by subsection (6A) below").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 173 to 176 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 177:
Page 25, line 4, leave out ("arise") and insert ("occur").
The noble Lord said My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I would be grateful for a brief explanation of this amendment which I do not think has been given.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord would clarify whether he is referring to Amendment No. 177 which, for the elucidation of noble Lords, states:
"leave out ("arise") and insert ("occur").
Lord Lucas: My Lords, yes.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not know how lengthy an explanation is needed. Clearly, "arise" suggests that it follows a previous reference. "Occur" means that it may occur of its own nature. That is why the change has taken place.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 178 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 179:
Page 25, line 6, leave out ("arises") and insert ("occurs").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 180 and 181 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 182:
Page 25, line 8, at end insert—
("(6A) If a vacancy occurs in the office of Chair of the Assembly and there is a person who is the Deputy Chair of the Assembly, that person shall (subject to the other provisions of this Act or any other enactment) also be the Chair of the Assembly until such time as the vacancy is filled in accordance with subsection (6) above.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 183 and 184 not moved.]
Clause 44 [Meetings of the whole Assembly]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 185:
Page 25, line 13, at beginning insert—
("(A1) The Assembly may hold. in addition to any meetings required to be held by or under this section or any other enactment, such other meetings as it may determine.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 185 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 188 and 192. This group of amendments deals with the types of meetings which the assembly may hold, their frequency and the public notice.
Amendment No. 185 makes it clear that the assembly may hold any meetings it chooses in addition to statutory meetings. Amendment No. 188 should be welcomed by the noble Lords, Lord Dixon-Smith and Lord Tope. I undertook to consider their concerns that the assembly should be required to hold a monthly meeting in August. This amendment is our response to that concern.
It places the requirement to hold 12 monthly meetings with the mayor with a requirement to hold 10 such meetings in each calendar month. Amendment No. 193 provides that the meetings may be not less than 28 days apart. Amendment No. 192 requires the first of these meetings after an election to take place not less than 25 days after the date of the poll. Provision for notice for the meetings is made in Amendment No. 193. Notice is to be given and published at least 28 clear days before the meeting or as soon as practicable in advance of the first meeting after an election.
The amendments answer queries on the previous procedure. Requiring only 10 meetings a year will enable both the assembly and the mayor to have what will undoubtedly be a well-deserved rest in August. I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for responding to our points on the matter. I suspect that if the evening wears on as it looks as though it will, he will be grateful to have a break rather sooner than the next one which will arise for this House.
Lord Tope: My Lords, perhaps I may add my gratitude. The amendment is obviously necessary and sensible. Indeed, it might have been better if it was there in the first place. However, I am grateful to the Minister and hope to be even more grateful next August.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 186 and 187 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 188 to 192:
Page 25, line 18, leave out from beginning to ("there") in line 19 and insert ("On such ten occasions in each calendar year as the Assembly may determine,").
Page 25, line 21, leave out ("Mayor's monthly written report") and insert ("written report submitted for the meeting by the Mayor").
Page 25, line 23, leave out ("question the Mayor or") and insert ("put—

(i) oral or written questions to the Mayor, and

(ii) oral questions to").

page 25, line 25, at end insert ("; and
() to transact any other business on the agenda for the meeting").
Page 25, line 25, at end insert—
("()The first meeting under subsection (2) above after an ordinary election shall be held not later than 25 days after the day of the poll at the election.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 193:
Page 25, line 26, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("(3) Notice of the time and place of any meeting of the Assembly—

(a) shall be given to the Mayor and the Assembly members, and

(b) shall be published, in accordance with the standing orders of the Authority.

(3A) In the case of a meeting of the Assembly under subsection (2) above, the notice required by subsection (3) above must be given and published—

(a) if the meeting is the first such meeting after an ordinary election, as soon as reasonably practicable after the day of the poll at that election; or

(b) in any other case, at least 28 clear days before the meeting.

576
(3B) If notice of a meeting to be held under subsection (2) above has been given pursuant to subsection (3A) above. then, until that meeting has been held or the notice has been withdrawn. notice must not be given of another such meeting.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 193, Amendment No. 193A:
Line 13, leave out subsection (3B).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 193A stands in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. It could not be more straightforward; it speaks for itself. It simply leaves out subsection (3B) which Amendment No. 193 seeks to insert.
There is some role reversal here. On these Benches, I have become used to listening to Ministers standing up and telling me that things are not necessary. It is my turn now. I really do not understand the necessity of having the new subsection (3B). I can understand its purpose—because I can understand the language—but not its necessity. It seems to me to be entirely unnecessary. The reason for my simple, short amendment is to demonstrate that point and to give the Minister the opportunity either to convince us that it is necessary or perhaps to convince himselr that it is not. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the point of the amendment in its original form is to ensure that all 10 meetings are not held in a complete rush and that there is an adequate distance between them. To delete the whole of subsection (3B) would mean, theoretically at least, the possibility of having 10 meetings in January or that some meetings would not; have an adequate period between them. I am afraid that on this occasion the amendment is necessary for the sake of clarity.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, perhaps I may probe a little on subsection (3B). When I first looked at it I thought that the best answer would be to delete it, as would the amendment to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Tope. However, perhaps I have misunderstood it.
If we look at subsection (3B) together with subsection (3A) it seems that meetings hale to be reported back at least 28 clear days apart. The first part of Clause 44 states that within 10 days of an election the assembly must meet to elect a chairman and a deputy chairman of the assembly. The next part of the clause states that 15 days after the poll, and then at monthly meetings, the report must be considered and there must be an opportunity for assembly members to question the mayor.
Subsection (3) states that notice must be given to the mayor. Subsection (3A) states that after the first meeting, notice must be given at least 28 days before the meeting. However, (3B) states that another notice cannot be given until that meeting has been held.
It is unclear whether a date can be fixed well in advance without the notice provisions applying. Would the Government consider clarifying that: point? It is somewhat confusing.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I raise a slightly important point for the convenience of all. The authority will want to print a GLA diary containing the dates of meetings. If that document is to be published a year in advance, the question would arise, whether formal notice is required.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not entirely follow what the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, said about the interconnections of the provisions.
On the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, many organisations, including public bodies, print an agreed timetable of meetings. However, that is different from the notice of a meeting. Of course, such dates can be changed.
On this amendment we are discussing the deletion of subsection (3B) from Amendment No. 193. In our view, we need adequate time between meetings, and the combination of these clauses provides that.
I shall look at what the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said to see whether we can bring any greater clarity to the matter. In the meantime I cannot accept the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, for the reasons that I have given.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I am grateful for the explanation. Clearly, if the Government feel that it is necessary to stop the mayor having 10 meetings in January, so be it. However, I do not feel that subsection (3B) is the correct way of achieving that. We want properly spaced meetings with proper notice. I understand what the notice of a meeting is and it is not something that is printed in a diary. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, with all his experience, knows that as well.
It seems to me that achieving that by preventing a notice being published before the previous meeting has been held is a considerable overstatement. I hope that the Minister will look at that again, as we shall. It is not a crucial matter in the running of a strategic authority for London. Obviously, I shall not press the matter now. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 193 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 194 to 196 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 197:
Page 25, line 42, at beginning insert ("All questions coming before, or to be decided by, the Assembly shall be decided by a majority of the members of the Assembly present and voting at a meeting of the Assembly.
(1A) In the case of an equality of votes, the person chairing the meeting of the Assembly shall have a second or casting vote.
(l B) Subsections (1) and (1A) above are subject to any provision to the contrary contained in this or any other enactment.
(1C)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 197 and I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 199 and 200, 220, 232, 292, 294,
578
295, 298, and 312 to 314. All those amendments hang together. They clarify and tidy up the provisions for the assembly to take decisions by a simple majority.
Amendment No. 197 makes express provision for the assembly to take decisions by a simple majority of those present and voting at a meeting, except where there is express provision in statute to the contrary. The provision is modelled on provisions in the Local Government Act 1972 and includes provision for the chair to exercise a casting vote where the vote is tied.
Amendments Nos. 199 and 200 are consequential. The other amendments in the group bring other references to assembly decisions by simple majority into line with the provision in Amendment No. 197. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, this amendment raises interesting questions about what happens when, in the assembly, there is an equality between two sides or parties. Before, matters were decided by a majority, presumably in accordance with the rules of this House where, if there is a tied vote, a matter proceeds or does not proceed, according to the type of matter that it is. However, the assembly is to have a chairman with a casting vote. If there is an equality of parties in the assembly, one side will be given a permanent majority rather than the equality voted for. That appears to be a strange way in which to upset the balance voted for in the assembly.
In Clause 43 there are provisions for the election of the chair. If the chair is to have the casting vote, how will the chair be elected when there is no chair to cast that vote? Although we are dealing with a situation where there is an even division of the assembly, this provision will introduce not a temporary but a permanent distortion, which is highly undesirable. I hope that the noble Lord will think again.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, finds this situation strange. It is common practice in local government in this country. He reminds me of my time in China when we talked about the chairman of a meeting having a casting vote. The Chinese found it grossly undemocratic that anyone should have two votes. The noble Lord appears to resemble the Chinese communists in that respect. Perhaps I should not insult him in that way.
It is a common practice in UK local government, and indeed elsewhere, for the chair to have the casting vote, as I am sure the Minister is about to tell us. The London Borough of Islington currently has an equal number of Labour and Liberal Democrat councillors. It is run on the casting vote of the chair of the committees. The casting vote always seems to be cast in accordance with the wishes of the Labour group. I do not know whether it is necessary for this provision to be included in the Bill, but it reflects normal practice in UK local government.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, on a simple point of arithmetic, I remind noble Lords that there will be 25 members in the assembly. Presumably, they will all

579
turn up for the first meeting, and presumably they will vote for a chair. From there on, I believe that the normal practice in local government will apply.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 198 to 200:
Page 25, line 43, after ("committees") insert ("and subcommittees").
Page 26, line I, leave out ("(1)") and insert ("(1C)").
Page 26, line 1, at end insert—
("() subsections (1) and (1A) above;")
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 201:
Page 26, line 2, at end insert—
("() section (Minutes) below;").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I described the group of amendments to Clause 46 as practical and intended to assist the authority in the conduct of its business. I am happy to describe this group in the same terms.
The amendments to Clause 46 provided for the assembly to be able to delegate its functions, not only to a committee or single member of the assembly, but also 10 sub-committees of the assembly and members of the authority's staff.
This group of amendments provides for the establishment of ordinary committees and subcommittees of the assembly, their membership, and the procedures they should follow. They also provide for the establishment of advisory committees and subcommittees.
If your Lordships want, I can go into great detail. However, Amendment No. 209 provides for the assembly to establish an ordinary committee that may, in turn, appoint one or more ordinary sub-committees. It will be for the assembly to decide the number of members of an ordinary committee and their terms of office The ordinary committees will, in turn, decide the membership of the sub-committees and their terms. We would expect such committees to deal with the day-to-day business of the assembly, including its scrutiny role, but it may establish standing committees to deal with issues where the authority has no function or responsibilities; for example, health or education. Only assembly members may be members of such committees.
Under these provisions the assembly may also appoint advisory committees, the membership of which may or may not include members of the assembly, and these advisory committees can, in turn, appoint sub-committees. That will allow the assembly to draw on the maximum range of support.
If noble Lords want, I can go through the details of the individual amendments that enact and enable that process to take place. At this stage, I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I want to comment briefly on Amendments Nos. 209, 211 and 212. On the first of those amendments, are the
580
provisions on advisory committees at subsections (4) and (5) necessary? Can the Minister tell us whether or not the assembly could do that without that provision? With regard to Amendments Nos. 211 and 212, which deal with the political composition of the assembly committees, should not the sub-committees be included as well? Should this apply, as the Government suggest, to advisory committees? How does it apply? Does is apply simply to assembly members on such committees or to all of the members?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, my understanding is that it applies to the assembly members of such committees. Should that not be the case, I shall write to the noble Baroness. Also, I can assure her that I have had confirmed the need and necessity for the wording set out.
7.30 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Ampthill): Before putting the question on this amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, only mentioned Amendment No. 209. The grouping contains a great number of other amendments. Does the noble Baroness wish to mention them at this juncture? Otherwise, successive occupants of the Woolsack may be a little confused.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I apologise to the House. I did not list them all and I now correct that error. In speaking to Amendment No. 201, I spoke also to Amendments Nos. 209 to 213, 231, 233, 237, 239 to 243 and 577 to 579.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Report stage begin again not before 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Seaside Resorts
7.31 p.m.
Lord Luke Lord Luke rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what progress they have made in promoting the regeneration of seaside resorts.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as I shall not have an opportunity to congratulate my noble friend Lord Seaford, I wish him well on his maiden speech.
Some time early in the 18th century it became accepted wisdom among the upper classes that bathing in the sea was good for the health. However, by the middle of the century there was only one resort of note; that was, somewhat surprisingly, Weymouth. Then, towards the end of the century, the Prince of Wales went swimming at a small fishing port called Brightelmstone. With such eminent support the idea caught on rapidly. Brightelmstone became Brighton

581
and vied with Worthing as the smart resort to be seen at. Then Queen Victoria discovered the Isle of Wight and went swimming in the Solent.
Meanwhile, the general prosperity engendered by the Industrial Revolution coincided with the advent of the railways, and the increasingly affluent middle class discovered in its turn the seaside. Resorts all around the coast sprang up—Brighton, Worthing, Bournemouth, Eastbourne, Hastings, Rye, Dover, Ramsgate, Margate, Southend, Clacton, Scarborough, Whitley Bay, Blackpool, Southport, Southsea, Torquay, and so forth, hence the many fine but often now decrepit Victorian villas to be found in most of them. All had two vital assets: the sea, and railway connections with the rest of the country. Their heyday was roughly 1880 to 1914. However, somewhat ominously, the upper classes now went to the South of France (by train of course).
Between the wars there were still good times at the seaside. However, after the second war a new holiday alternative—flying—took off, with progressively cheaper and cheaper package holidays to all over the world. Our seaside resorts began to die. Nothing much was done to help them. For instance, virtually all the brand new road and motorway systems, constructed at vast expense and which contributed so greatly to the enormous increase in our standard of living, passed them by. Now, in many cases, when it is almost too late, most resorts have at last started to look at themselves; to try to identify their assets and think seriously about how best they can exploit them.
On the negative side, it has for some time been customary for some local authorities to send their homeless, their down-and-outs and other difficult residents, to live in the run-down and therefore cheap houses and hotels in the old seaside resorts. Inevitably that creates an ambience and atmosphere that does not attract potential visitors. Nor does the more modern practice of using similar accommodation for potential immigrants and asylum seekers, however worthy and law-abiding. However, I welcome the report of the Minister—Janet Anderson—to Richard Spring in another place on 22nd July when she said that she was trying to persuade her government colleagues to stop sending asylum seekers to resorts. There is also, unfortunately, a strong drug culture in many of the larger resorts, which is also a big deterrent to visitors.
Access, once one of the strengths of the seaside resorts, is sadly now most often another minus. However, Blackpool has the M.55 (built by the Conservatives). On the other hand there is Hastings, at the end of the notorious A.21 and with a poor road and rail connection to Dover, whence French and Belgian visitors are wooed to visit the site of the one great victory foreigners won on British soil. Many other resorts suffer similar handicaps. The railway networks could make an enormous difference if they were modernised and provided clean and comfortable travel.
So what is to be done? There are many and varied aspects to the problem. Not least and perhaps the first priority is the identification, upgrading and proper
582
marketing of assets. Both corporate, local government and individual imagination are vital. Who first thought of putting up a display of illuminations along the front at Blackpool? He or she certainly had some imagination.
What are potential visitors seeking? That is a key question. There are different categories of visitor. Why are there so few statistics available, in spite of the valiant efforts of the British Resorts Association? Is the trend away from the weekly and longer holiday to short three or four-day breaks a permanent situation? What is the catchment area of a specific resort? Is there any encouragement for visitors to fill in questionnaires?
I believe that there are three main groups of visitors to the seaside. First, older people who want, perhaps, a quiet weekend or a few days break; easy access, comfortable accommodation and the sense of being made really welcome. Secondly, families with young or teen-aged children who want cheap, but adequate accommodation and, above all, good facilities to amuse the children in sunshine and rain. There is a strong supposition that they will wish to come by car. Thirdly, young men and women who want a good weekend party (or rave)—accommodation not particularly relevant!
The problem of poor quality accommodation and sometimes absurdly high prices must be addressed. Hastings has no three star hotels. Blackpool has one or two mega hotels, but the rest in that most successful of all British seaside resorts do not measure up. Self-catering is thought to be one likely way forward, certainly in Hastings. The special needs of the physically and mentally handicapped must be addressed.
Cinemas in resorts should be modern and multi-screen (our splendidly varied weather makes that essential). New uses could and should be found for all facilities and attractions—for example, the provision of conference centres as at Blackpool, Bournemouth, Brighton, Scarborough and so forth. The sea and the beaches themselves—are they the asset that they should and must be? Not if they are polluted and fail to measure up to the highest standard of hygiene. Are all resorts that still tip sewage into the sea now treating it as they should, with ultraviolet rays?
Commercial sponsorship should be sought as perhaps the best source of private money if it can be obtained. Television and other media must be used extensively by the resort which wishes to sell itself effectively. Discounted rail fares are a big incentive, as long as a decent service is provided. Facilities in a resort must be continually upgraded. Use of the Internet, the British Tourist Authority and British Council offices abroad should be encouraged.
There are great opportunities for private industry to work in partnership with local authorities and other representative bodies to make the best of a specific area or grouping of resorts. The "1066 country" campaign, which involves the area around Hastings, Pevensey, Battle, St. Leonards, Rye and others, is proving to be an effective way of attracting French and

583
Belgian tourists, as I said earlier. Once again, an imaginative concept in spite of the poor communications.
The English Tourism Council—a new body arising from the ashes of the English Tourist Board—has announced a taskforce approach to the problems of resort regeneration. I hope and pray that this means on-the-spot investigations and support for local initiatives. The British Tourist Authority is rightly concerned about the plight of so many resorts and is strongly supporting these initiatives.
I do like to be beside the seaside. I am not going to sing; it might provoke the Minister to do so—although I remember how well he did so in certain other debates. I very much like the salty smell of the sea, but too many nowadays prefer other seas, not ours. Let us hope that will change. I very much look forward to the debate and the Minister's reply.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Seaford: My Lords, it is with some diffidence that I make my contribution to this discussion. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Luke, for his fine words about something I have not yet done. I am not strong on regeneration and I have been a Member of your Lordships' House only since Monday. I must thank my noble friend Lord Monson for encouraging me not to waste time.
The phrase on the Order Paper, "The regeneration of coastal towns", prompted a certain fellow feeling. Seaford is a brave little coastal town, much battered by the sea and in constant need of regeneration. As I have the honour to carry its name—I received a rather muscular Christian education there in its bracing airs some while back—I feel I have some small understanding of the seasonal variations of life in such towns.
All communities, of course, try their hardest to regenerate themselves—self-interest demands it—but with only half the hinterland of inland towns they must rely on their main assets, the beach, the sea and thus tourism. With the considerable increase in standards expected for pollution control and public safety, these assets have become more expensive to service. Competition from cheap air fares and southern sunshine is immense. Our resorts need as much help as possible.
As I am sure your Lordships are aware, figures produced by the British Resorts Association are quite compelling both in the amount that holiday makers contribute to the coastal economy and how the index of local deprivation indicates a lowering of living standards for those permanently residing in resorts.
The proposals to extend Objective 2 funding to seven more coastal resorts and to retain or increase the funding already allocated to another seven are most welcome. But one must add the caveat that where there are winners in the search for funds there are also losers. For instance, although some of the wards of Torbay fall within the boundaries drawn for availability of
584
funding, the industrial wards do not—so there will be help to regenerate housing but not to regenerate or encourage new business for the people in those houses.
As one who has a small connection with an even smaller business one parish outside the South Western 5b area, I am well aware of the benefits that t hat status can attract. I am also aware how those beyond the pale press their faces wistfully against the glass.
Almost 800 years ago King John conferred his version of Objective 2 funding on Seaford in exchange for the service of ships to help defend these shores from the hostile actions of those across the water to the south. Now prospective tourists hop on the Newhaven ferry and spend their day out in Dieppe, lured by the attractions across the water—one serious attraction being the awfully good value of wines and spirits. I remain baffled that, with the great push towards Euroland, the reality often seems to be that we are still waiting for the arrival of the Common Market. The inequalities in excise duty between Newhaven and Dieppe are a crucial factor for traders over here and militate severely against them. It is no surprise that a holidaymaker planning a jaunt passes by the home resort.
In so many of the ramifications of the so-called single market our citizens are required to operate with a handicap. As my noble predecessor might have pointed out, handicaps can be altered by the stewards. It is my hope that the stewards will consider this.
It would be a blessing if members of our Government would give a lead by taking their holidays in some of our coastal resorts. They could then do for Thanet what they have done for Tuscany.
I thank your Lordships for your courtesy and forbearance.
7.44 p.m.
Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, may I first and foremost congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Seaford, on his most thoughtful and enlightening maiden speech. After taking his seat on Monday, the noble Lord has certainly not wasted any time in opening his innings in your Lordships' House. Sadly I fear, however, that most of us hereditary Peers will have a rather abrupt ending to our innings in your Lordships' House. None the less, we warmly welcome the noble Lord.
It is perhaps opportune that the noble Lord—who has one of the largest bison herds in the country at his farm, which is one of the major tourist attractions in Wiltshire—should be contributing to this tourist-related debate. Having the name Lord Seaford added that extra touch to his speech.
I am also grateful to my noble kinsman Lord Luke—I always enjoy saying "my noble kinsman"—for introducing the debate and giving its the opportunity to briefly discuss the subject. As a traditional beachbum who hails from the sunny skies and wonderful beaches of Cape Town, my particular interest in the debate concerns the state of Britain's beaches.

585
In a Starred Question last year about the environmental conditions and the cleanliness of Britain's beaches, I remarked that the tide was turning. I was therefore interested to read the headline in the weekend business section of The Times on the 14th August which said:
"The tide is turning on Britain's seaside towns".
I was also interested to read the various documents that the Government have recently published on the regeneration of our traditional resorts. The Government have accepted that addressing an improvement in the tourist resorts around the coastline should be one of the core action points in their tourism strategy.
The Culture Secretary, Chris Smith, was correct when he said:
"Our seaside resorts attract more than 20 million holidays each year, in England, but there is capacity to accommodate many more people".
Sadly, the ease of access and the cost of going to the Mediterranean; the history of unseasonably bad weather in Britain; the practice of emptying raw sewage into the water where we swim; and the ageing infrastructure of many of the traditional resorts, has led to a spiral of decline, which has left many of the major attractions around the coastline in a depressing state of disrepair.
However, there is good news. As a result of the introduction of more effective environmental legislation; the massive investment that the water industry has made to improve continuous and intermittent discharges; the on-going work of the Beachwatch campaign, the "Bag It and Bin It" campaign, the Adopt a Beach campaign and other voluntary environmental groups and local councils, bathing water quality is improving, albeit slowly, around the coast. Some 260 beaches—which is 13 more than last year—have achieved seaside awards for both cleanliness and facilities in 1999. None the less, changing public attitudes towards domestic litter disposal is one of the greatest challenges facing us. It certainly needs to be tackled by local authorities, industry and environmental organisations with a role in influencing behaviour.
I wholeheartedly support the Government's strategy document, Tomorrow's Tourism, and I trust that a lot more public and European funding will be targeted to boost English seaside resorts, matched by improved facilities and services. But actions speak louder than words. Let us hope that the dawn of the next millennium will be the launching pad for a new era of opportunity for our seaside resorts.
7.50 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Luke for introducing the debate. I should like also to congratulate my noble friend Lord Seaford on his maiden speech. I shall speak about the same county, but not the same resorts as were mentioned by him or by my noble friend Lord Luke.
586
In our area of East Sussex tourism has seriously declined. As my noble friend Lord Luke said, old guest-houses and boarding houses have reverted to sub-standard housing which is now in multiple occupation. It is tragic that they are often of such a low standard. Those resorts are encouraging new forms of tourism aimed at educational and cultural experience. That includes having tens of thousands of language students. They are also encouraging new forms of employment in the commercial and manufacturing sectors.
To touch first on Brighton, the seafront has been transformed where successful regeneration has been achieved. There are two lessons to be drawn from that. First, funding from the single regeneration budget has led to significant private sector investment. It is a partnership that I warmly welcome. Secondly, the Government have recognised that regeneration is a long-term process through their designation of east Brighton as a pilot under the New Deal for Communities initiative. It is a 10-year programme to transform that particular part of Brighton and Hove. I warmly welcome it.
Brighton has the excellent advantage of good communications and transport facilities. The journey by train to London takes less than an hour, and there are dual carriageway road connections north and south and east and west.
Sadly, the same is not true of Hastings. Trains to London take one and half to two hours, and, with a few exceptions, there is no dual carriageway between Tonbridge and Hastings, and none east and west. For that purpose we must await the results of the Government's Access to Hastings study, which is now under way. I plead with the Minister for better communications to and from Hastings as an urgent matter.
On the brighter side, I warmly welcome the Government's announcement last week that Hastings and St Leonard's is to be included in a submission to the European Commission for Objective 2 structural funding. That is an acknowledgement by the Government of the issues of high unemployment and deprivation in the town, as well as of the progress that Hastings is making with its local partners to address those problems. The recent loss of assisted area status has been a blow to Hastings, but people there are optimistic that its new designation as an enterprise grant area will compensate for the loss of grant aid under the assisted area regime.
While much is being done locally, Hastings needs continuing government recognition and resources to help deal with the structural weaknesses in the local economy. The town must be seen as a good place to invest. That means continuing support to improve the infrastructure, the built environment, road and rail links and IT infrastructure. I commend the good things that the Government are doing, but there are many more areas that still need to be tackled.
7.53 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to my noble friend Lord Luke for raising this Question this evening and for his comprehensive mise-en-scène. I am delighted to join other noble Lords in welcoming my noble friend Lord Seaford to our debates.
Our seaside resorts can survive in the face of Palma and Gran Canaria, and even in the face of Miami and Australia. But to do so, they must make the most of their assets. They must trade on their hinterlands, a point that has been touched on. Bournemouth does very well by exploiting the New Forest. They must give value for money. I am surprised that that critical point has not been mentioned. They must be clean and tidy. They must cope with litter. If there is a real turn-off, it is the overladen waste-paper basket. They must give the customer what he or she wants—and not merely in terms of the beach, sea, sun and fun, not merely in terms of climate. If they can offer all those things, they will survive, as Le Touquet proves, as does Scheveningen, in Holland, and the many North Sea and Baltic resorts in the Republic of Germany. In the age of the jet set, a traditional British resort can survive for a number of reasons, but it must work to do so. It is not just for Her Majesty's Government to solve the problem; it is a matter for the resorts themselves.
It is tempting to ask the Government, and indeed the Euro-funds to throw money at the problem. The point has been mentioned. But I hope that that temptation will continue to be resisted. Rather, the Government should use other powers to become an enabler of resort success. I think of Bournemouth, which, on the basis of its 90-year-old resort status, has not only developed itself as a conference centre but also as a centre of learning. It may amaze noble Lords to learn that classes of Norwegians spend whole academic years in Bournemouth. They do so not merely because the quality of the product is good. They are not only learning English; they take baccalaureate examinations and similar courses, and they are receiving value for money.
Bournemouth has problems. Many noble Lords will have been there for party conferences. The town still has what was formerly an enchanting railway station, which unfortunately was severely damaged in the Great Storm of 1987. It is one of the two gateways for most visitors to Bournemouth. It is held together by scaffolding and the dedication of the staff, and not much else. While the former British Rail, now Railtrack, and English Heritage try to agree on the question of restoration or replacement, what the railway sees as practical and what English Heritage sees as desirable, sadly, seem to be irreconcilable. Perhaps the Minister will use his influence to bang some heads together.
Other party conference delegates arriving in Bournemouth may not realise that the building of the arterial road that links the resort with London and most of the rest of the country cut parts of the resort in half. It separated thriving communities—I was brought up there, which is why I have known them for 40 years—from their post office, church, drill hall,
588
pubs, shops, libraries and restaurants. All those things contribute to a vibrant community, not only for the natives of a town but also for visitors. Again, I hope the Minister will take on board the fact that that is a dreadful advertisement for the resort. I hope that he will use his influence to remind both the planners and the democratically elected that they must take greater account of the consequences of their actions if our resorts are to survive.
7.57 p.m.
The Earl of Drogheda: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Luke, for providing us with the opportunity to debate this subject. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Seaford, on his maiden speech. I should like to speak briefly about the importance of architecture as regards this question.
Our seaside towns are essentially 19th century creations to enable people from the cities to have a real break from the routine of their daily lives. In their best architecture there is an elegant lightness, a combination of gaiety and humour, and even a feeling of festivity. Just think of the icing cake architecture of the piers at Brighton that John Betjeman campaigned so tirelessly to save, or the Brighton Pavilion, which was so nearly demolished after the Second World Wax by town planners eager to create a brave new world that would, as they thought, drag Brighton into the 20th century. Before the war, our seaside towns were places to be proud of. Now, as various speakers have emphasised, what a sad state they are in.
I wish to make a diversion to illustrate the importance of architecture by comparing the state of the cities of Philadelphia and Boston. Forty years ago the two cities were much on a par. Then two things happened: Philadelphia allowed the most monstrous buildings to be built in places where no regard was paid to the human element. Boston did exactly the reverse, it cherished its historic parts. The result is that Boston is now a thriving city which people love to visit and to which they want to move, whereas Philadelphia is in a sad state. It is completely unloved and demoralised.
What can be done about our towns? It is vital to retain the traditional architecture in the towns. Abandon that and they will die. When new buildings are built, the builders should be obliged to conform to the prevailing traditional style of the place, not only in design but also in materials and details. They should embrace such things as shop fronts, street lamps, bus stops, benches and promenades.
We must avoid any repetition of such buildings as the conference centre at Brighton which is a disgrace. Let us remember that people do not go to the seaside in Great Britain for the sake of the sunshine or the swimming. Were it only that, they would go to the Mediterranean. It is therefore necessary for something else to be provided. I believe it is essential that our seaside towns are helped to recapture the qualities that they must once have had and that once again they become places where people who visit them find something different from everyday life, where there is an element of enchantment, of magic.

589
To achieve that, we must cherish them. That means first and foremost cherishing them in architectural and environmental terms.
8.1 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, my home in Sandgate in Kent resonates to a unique cacophony of sounds: the spirited holidaymakers, the seasonal bustle, the celebration of children and, for those of us whose first love is the sea, the privilege of living within earshot of the mighty sounds of the storms and gentle lapping on the shores.
Yet that privilege along the Kentish coast which I know best has become beset by challenges unique to our area. On the local front, special sensitivities are essential in the face of serious drug problems and social deprivation. Local councils are responding with local communities and the private sector with initiatives to tackle the litany of challenges from many of my noble friends.
In the village where I live, the outstanding work of the Sandgate Society has been based on vigilance, expertise and consultation. Modern architects have, on the whole, responded well. Behind us in Sandgate is the gloriously designed pavilion built on rare firm ground in our landslipped village. Light materials and design greet the sea views and provide young children with an innovative company crèche in a setting second to none.
Yet in the towns along our coastline which covers Dover, Folkestone and Hythe, despite good local authority leadership, especially in Folkestone, supported by a well articulated press campaign led by the Herald's editor, Nick Hudson, the asylum crisis poses a serious problem which requires more immediate and comprehensive government intervention than we have witnessed to date. Had the Home Secretary implemented the 1996 Act and associated benefit changes, after which the number of applicants for asylum fell by 40 per cent, the problem would not have been anything like as severe. Your Lordships will recall that the courts then intervened on benefit changes, an issue which the Government could have corrected. The reality is that Michael Howard's intervention, both as Home Secretary and as a well liked, conscientious local MP, would have tackled the issue to great effect.
Shepway District Council rightly feels that it is being left to carry the can for the Government, while they pursue their soft touch approach. The council is trying to attract some European Union money for the problem of asylum seekers, but this is still at a very early stage.
I now turn to the "Believing in Folkestone" initiative. I praise Shepway District Council's efforts to achieve single regeneration budget status, again thanks to the initiative taken by Michael Howard as Secretary of State for the Environment and continued by the Government today. We need to help to regenerate infrastructure and the coastal environment.
590
The immediate post and pre-war two-week bucket and spade holidays are gone. Our coastal resorts have to sell themselves in today's market.
So a mixture of private, public and voluntary associations have been working together under the auspices of the "Believing in Folkestone" initiative. Much headway has been made towards the holistic regeneration of the town. Childcare schemes have been developed and attempts have been made to tackle social exclusion and crime and drugs problems—not least by the police and Victim Support, one of whose local leaders, Judith Lansdell, this year was rightly awarded an MBE.
Practical economic measures have been taken with a focus on training and the provision of jobs. The council rightly feels that this has very much been a result of its own efforts and certainly not something that has been handed to it on a plate by the Government.
Against that background of the Government, who have come forward with some imaginative or well rehearsed lines about the importance of supporting our coastal resorts, I turn to the application of Lympne Industrial Park for a selective assistance grant. Link Park in Lympne has been trying for some time to apply for a grant under Section 13 of the 1982 Industrial Development Act. This attempt has been frustrated time after time, due to the lack of action on the part of the Government and agencies of government.
Collectively, 35 different approaches have now been made, both to GOSE and to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. There has still been no adequate response. Yet this industrial site should be part of the local economy which is in desperate need of a boost.
I turn to the Minister, whose reputation for hard work and delivery of results is exceptionally high. I seek tonight simply his undertaking that he will intervene on the issue. Seaside resorts must change and adapt to the new climate of competitively priced foreign travel. This will not change and the Government must play their part in the process of renewal and regeneration in what is a national treasure. We live on an island, with a coastline among the most beautiful in the world. This is a priceless asset which has in every sense been allowed to decline. We must end that decline. We have a duty to protect and nurture this legacy for future generations. Just as I grew up by the beach in Dymchurch, I want my children and one day their children to be enriched with the same memories of the sound of the sea, in all its moods and at all hours of day and night, as they sleep a stone's throw from the beach.
That is why it is so important that priority be given to the tranquillity and unique historic beauty of Sandgate and our seaside towns that can be handed down to future generations.
8.7 p.m.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, I begin by offering my congratulations from these Benches to the noble Lord,

591
Lord Seaford, on his excellent maiden contribution. I welcome him to your Lordships' House in the few short weeks remaining to us both.
As usual, I declare my interests in the industry, but as I have only four minutes perhaps your Lordships will not mind if I take them as read, I have declared them on many occasions. The exception is one which is relevant to this debate: I am a vice-president of the British Resorts Association, as are, I believe, a number of other noble Lords in the Chamber.
I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Luke, for having raised the Question and for once again giving us the opportunity to talk on tourism-related matters. The noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, are a formidable team. As I was going through my file of tourism documents to see what might be said this evening, I came across the Order Paper for 16th March. It was the noble Baroness who asked the Question of the Government: what is their strategy for tourism? Tonight they have a somewhat more rifle-shot approach, having narrowed it down to seaside resorts. It is none the less welcome for that.
I shall not go into the specifics of what resorts may or may not do, but rather into what I see as the heart of the Question. It is: what is the role of government in the regeneration of seaside resorts and in tourism generally? The role of government, that is, as opposed to the role of the regional development agencies or the role of local government. If we consider the current availability of Objective 2 funding, which I believe is imminent, quite a few resorts will benefit from Objective 2 funding. It is less of a government matter than one that is being dealt with by the regional development agencies and local government. I may be wrong, but whenever I try to get anything in Scotland it comes from the Highland Regional Council and not the Scottish Office.
Turning to the Government, the question is one of looking at what should be the key roles. What can government do and what could the government do in the promotion of tourism generally and seaside resorts in particular?
I do not believe that the industry should expect the Government to do everything for it. There are two key issues on which we need the help of the Government. The first lies in the development of a cohesive national strategy; the second is to ensure that there is a structure in place for that strategy to be prosecuted. Although I have often criticised the Government in some areas of tourism, in this regard I believe that they have made considerable progress with the development of Tomorrow's Tourism or Tourism Tomorrow. I always confuse the two. The latter is the one that I wrote for the Liberal Democrats three years ago. In the strategy outlined in Tomorrow's Tourism the Department of Culture, Media and Sport went a long way towards answering many of the industry's questions.
I have more concern about structure. I am concerned that the new English Tourism Council has no role in the promotion of tourism and is confined
592
solely to other areas, but I believe that the development of the ETC is a good idea and that over time it will change.
At this stage in my remarks I was tempted to say that this would probably be the last time that I would have an opportunity to speak in your Lordships' House on tourism. However, I was cautioned by my noble friend who said that that would almost guarantee that I would be on my feet again. However, this will probably be the last time. I conclude by saying that we have often debated this subject in your Lordships' House. It is always said that tourism is a big industry. There is a lovely quote in a document produced by the Department for International Development which begins,
"As tourism overtakes oil to claim the crown of biggest industry on earth … ".
It is delightful to hear that from a department other than the DCMS.
This is a big industry. The real challenge for us is to have quality of product for the consumer and, even more important, the creation of quality jobs. Here I offer congratulations to the Government on such initiatives as the minimum wage, which I have always supported. For me, quality of provision and quality of jobs are most important. I hope that the Government will continue to work in those fields.
8.12 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Luke put the problems faced by seaside resorts into their historical, social and economic perspectives. He reflected on the basic issue: why do we go to the seaside and why would we continue to do so in the future? This summer I enjoyed several visits to the English seaside. Last week I went to Blackpool where I stayed in an excellent small family-run hotel. In August I took my family holiday by the sea in Devon. In Salcombe we enjoyed the beach and beautiful countryside. In Sidmouth there was a lot to do, including a visit to the first-class Charles Vance repertory theatre. Everything that is good about the English seaside was there. All of those were good experiences. But the Which? report this summer highlighted the problems that exist. A number of the nation's top seaside destinations are dismissed in that report as a dismal mix of one-star guest houses, decaying attractions and tired shops selling cheap rubbish.
In his very thoughtful maiden speech, my noble friend Lord Seaford referred to the evidence given by the British Resorts Association on seaside deprivation. The association points out that,
"Seaside resorts in the UK need support to tackle problems of economic, social and environmental decline. It is now critical for policymakers to respond to the needs of resorts if further and irrecoverable decline is not to take place".
I believe that the role of government should be to provide a framework for recovery but, above all, to avoid doing anything that adds to the problems of seaside businesses. My noble friend Lord Moynihan referred to government policy on the dispersal of asylum-seekers and the disastrous impact that that has

593
on the economy of seaside resorts. With over 86,000 asylum seekers awaiting the outcome of their applications to stay in Britain, what is the Government's assessment of the expected impact on seaside resorts? My noble friend Lord Brentford referred to the problems caused by the low standards of houses in multiple occupation. What progress have the Government made with the public consultation exercise on HMOs to which the Minister for Tourism referred in her Written Answer in another place on 13th July?
In a debate earlier this year, to which the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, alluded, I referred to the problems caused by the decision of the Government to raise amusement taxes by 30 per cent in last year's Budget. BACTA has provided the Government with evidence of the damage that that has caused to the seaside amusement sector. Some arcade businesses have already closed down, for example in Margate, Ramsgate and Folkestone. The units are still vacant and no business is taking place. Yesterday at 2 p.m. Hastings Pier called in the receivers.
What progress has been made by the Government in considering the case put forward by BACTA at its meeting in July of this year with the Financial Secretary? It asked the Government to remove all trivial 10p stake amusement with prizes machines from the amusement machine licence duty. It also asked the Government to reverse the tax hike of 30 per cent on 10p club machines—the kinds of machines that we and our families have played on during innocent family holidays by the seaside. To grant these requests would aid coastal economies and keep afloat many smaller businesses which are a sizeable element in the seaside amusements sector. It would also recognise the important role played by seaside amusements in maintaining piers and the building fabric of coastal towns. At the very least, will the Government set up a study to calculate the impact of the tax increases on the industry? My noble friend Lord Mountevans pointed out that the resorts had to make the most of their assets. Very tellingly, he also pointed out that they must give value for money.
I end by paying tribute to the businesses and councils in seaside resorts which have already taken steps to help themselves by drawing up realistic regeneration plans. All of us, politicians and consumers, are part of that partnership to help regenerate seaside resorts. Let us all play our part in promoting regeneration so that future generations can enjoy the resorts as much as we do.
8.16 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I add my congratulations to those expressed to the noble Lord, Lord Luke, for introducing this important debate. The fact that he opened it in a slightly ironic tone, if he will forgive me for saying so, did not do any harm to the constructive nature of the contributions we have heard this evening. I rather enjoyed the tour of the south coast. I hope that I put the resorts in the right order. The tour included Sandgate, Folkestone and Dover,
594
referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. Seaford was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Seaford, in his excellent maiden speech. If he is that well informed about seaside resorts, perhaps he can find an opportunity to inform the House about bison farming. That would be very welcome indeed. The noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, referred to Hastings and Brighton. The noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, spoke about Bournemouth. The noble Earl, Lord Drogheda, also spoke about Brighton. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, referred to Salcombe and Sidmouth. It was a great tour, with diversions to Cape Town from the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, and Philadelphia and Boston from the noble Earl, Lord Drogheda. We have done very well geographically.
My business instinct is always to try to treat these matters in terms of marketing and management practice. I tried to fit the SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) formula to seaside resorts and failed. I believe that I failed for the very significant and good reason that seaside resorts cannot be lumped together. One cannot generalise about the problems that they face or their opportunities. The great virtue of this country's seaside resorts is their diversity. As a result, in many respects the Government should not seek to impose a template of planning policy, funding policy or development policy on seaside resorts because they must work out their salvation in their own way and use their strengths to maximise the opportunities. There is no doubt that collectively they are enormously important. As the noble Lord, Lord St John, reminded us, 20 million holidays a year are taken at English resorts. But, as he told us, Chris Smith has pointed out that many more could be taken with the resources available.
It is true that seaside resorts have a range of economic, social and environmental problems, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, reminded us. One problem universal to all of them is changes in holiday patterns in the past 40 or 50 years. We do not have the same bucket and spade holiday that we used to have, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, reminded us. There is much less demand for the traditional English bed and breakfast accommodation, with the landlady keeping you out of the premises between nine o'clock in the morning and five o'clock in the afternoon. After all, people who come from towns where their main public catering is Indian, Chinese and Greek will not be too keen on the evening meal at six o'clock, which one still encounters in Blackpool. I do not want in any way to criticise the great British breakfast. It is the best meal of the day in this country, and always has been. However, those changes have caused great problems because many millions of people have gone on package tours abroad and no longer are available for the traditional Wakes week (one week or two weeks) at the other end of a railway line from our industrial towns—if we had industrial towns to the same extent any more.
It means also that there are opportunities: opportunities for more short stay holidays; attracting more overseas visitors, as we were told as regards

595
Bournemouth; and in particular for provision for conferences and exhibitions, which has been the saving of a considerable number of seaside resorts. It also means that we have to look at the advantages that other forms of tourism have and that our seaside resorts have not yet learned. We cannot do anything about the temperature of the sea. We cannot do much about the sun, except by providing sheltered attractions. But we could do something about "bookability", the feature of package holidays which really should be a feature of our own seaside resorts.
The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, very properly questioned the role of government. I agree with him and with the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, that the role of government is to provide the framework within which regions, districts and individual resorts can best regenerate themselves. But, as everyone always expects from government, there has to be financial support, and indeed there is. We have been talking about Objective 1 and Objective 2 availability of grants. Cornwall and Merseyside were already recognised as Objective 1. In July we announced the range of tourism schemes in the single regeneration budget, a total of £10 million in Lincolnshire, Yorkshire, Sussex, Lancashire, Great Yarmouth, Folkestone and Torbay. I take the point of I think the noble Earl, Lord Drogheda, that one of the most significant wards in Torbay has been excluded from these areas.
There has been £85 million from the Millennium Commission for such places as Durham, Whitehaven, Portsmouth and Hull. Only last week we announced the Objective 2 areas, which include Waveney and Great Yarmouth, North Tyneside, West Cumbria, Lancaster, including Morecambe, Brighton and Hove, Dover. Folkestone and Thanet, Plymouth, Blackpool, Hastings and others. So substantial amounts of funding from government, from Europe, have been added to the substantial investment which local authorities make.
As regards the contribution that we can make to the framework, I am grateful to all noble Lords, notably the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, for the recognition of the importance of Tomorrow's Tourism document. Perhaps I may return the compliment. I think that Tomorrow's Tourism owes a considerable amount to the thoughtful Tourism Tomorrow document which the noble Viscount wrote for the Liberal Democrats some years ago. Tomorrow's Tourism is not a government publication. It is a collaboration between the Government and the tourism industry and the other authorities concerned. The regional tourist boards are now responsible for more of their own funding. The RDAs have substantial devolved responsibilities for planning. There is the role of local authorities. On the role of the English Tourism Council, I heard regrets that it is no longer concerned with promotion. But that is the responsibility of the BTA and the regional tourist boards. I do not think that it will be found that promotion has been neglected.
The principles underlying Tomorrow's Tourism apply strongly to our seaside resorts. One of those principles is quality, and we are within a month of the
596
launch of the accommodation classification scheme which has been voluntarily agreed between the AA, the RAC and the English Tourism Council. Another principle is access, not just for the disabled but for older people, families, carers and single travellers. These are part of an attempt to open up new markets for tourism. Information is the same as promotion, about which I have already spoken.
Sustainable development is concern for the environment. It is perhaps less of a problem for seaside resorts which have largely grown up as tourism destinations than for such places as our national parks. The principles of Tomorrow's Tourism are extremely relevant to this matter.
I said wrongly that Brighton and Hove was included in Objective 2. I apologise for that. There are so many lists that it is difficult to keep up with them.
In the last couple of minutes available to me, perhaps I may respond to some of the points made. The noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, referred to the problem of houses in multiple occupation. There is indeed a problem arising from the 1996 Housing Act. The problem is how to define them in such a way that regulation can be implemented and some licensing introduced. The DETR has been consulting. It has not reached a proper conclusion yet, but I take the message that the matter is urgent.
I recognise the point about asylum seekers. The Immigration and Asylum Act has yet to receive Royal Assent. But what is planned is that the Home Office will take responsibility for accommodating destitute asylum seekers away from London and the south-east. There are no plans to use seaside towns unless they are in suitable areas to accommodate asylum seekers. What that means is that many more asylum seekers will be accommodated in suitable places away from seaside towns and that should reduce the pressure.
I entirely agree with the noble Earl, Lord Drogheda, about the importance of architecture. I agree with the lessons that he draws from Philadelphia and Boston. But it would be a tragedy if we were to lose the wonderful physical appearance of many of our seaside resorts.
We have been making progress as regards beaches. When I say "we", I do not mean this Government in particular. In 1988, 66 per cent of our beaches qualified for the blue flag: the EU mandatory standards. In 1997 it was 89 per cent. There is still confusion between the blue flag and the Keep Britain Tidy classification.
The noble Lord, Lord Luke, asked me about UV treatment. That is a refined version of the biological treatment, which is more common, but it is spreading and is already being used in Blackpool and Southport. I was also asked about planning issues. The DETR has appointed consultants who are specifically charged with assessing the needs of tourism and leisure developers in revising planning regulations.

597
I hope that I have made it clear that we attach enormous importance to our seaside resorts—not least because so many of them are now represented by Labour MPs!
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, would he kindly give an undertaking to look into the case of Lympne industrial park?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall certainly look into it and write to the noble Lord. If there is anything I can do to help, I shall be glad to do so. I repeat my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Luke, and to all who took part in this interesting debate.

Greater London Authority Bill
8.30 p.m.
Further consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Clause 46 [Discharge of functions by committees or single members]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 202:
Page 26, line 7, leave out from beginning to first ("the") in line 8.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 202 standing in the name of my noble friend, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 203 to 208.
Currently, the provisions of Clause 46 permit the assembly to arrange for the discharge of its functions only by a committee of the assembly or by a single member of the assembly. We believe that this is too restrictive. Therefore, this group of amendments provides for the assembly also to delegate its functions to sub-committees and in certain circumstances to GLA staff.
In order to help the House I shall briefly explain the purpose of each amendment. Amendment No. 202 is a drafting amendment. The same provision is made in Amendment No. 208 and now appears at the end of the clause. Amendment No. 203 adds sub-committees as a category to which functions may be delegated by the assembly. Amendment No. 204 provides for the assembly to delegate its staff appointment functions to members of staff of the authority appointed under the provisions of Clause 56(2). This excludes delegation to the staff appointed by the mayor.
Amendment No. 205 provides for the delegation by committees to sub-committees and in turn for the delegation by sub-committees to a single member. Amendment No. 206 provides that where delegations have taken place, that will not prevent the assembly, or whoever has made those delegations, from exercising those functions where they choose to do so.
Amendment No. 207 applies and extends the provisions introduced by Amendment No. 197 in relation to the quorum of the assembly and its committees and the voting procedures in those
598
committees. This means that questions before such committees will be decided by a majority of those present and that in the case of an equality of votes, the chair will have a second casting vote. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendments Nos. 203 to 206:
Page 26, line 10, after ("committee") insert ("or subcommittee").
Page 26, line 11. at end insert—
("(1A) The Assembly may arrange for a member of staff of the Authority appointed under section 56(2) below to exercise on the Assembly's behalf any function exercisable by the Assembly under section 56(2) or 59(2) below.").
Page 26, line 11, at end insert—
("(1A) The Assembly may arrange for a member of staff of the Authority appointed under section 56(2) below to exercise on the Assembly's behalf any function exercisable by the Assembly under section 56(2) or 59(2) below.").
Page 26, line 12, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) Any arrangements made under this section by the Assembly, or by a committee or sub-committee of the Assembly, for the discharge of any functions by—

(a) a committee or sub-committee of the Assembly,

(b) a member of the Assembly, or

(c) a member of staff of the Authority,

shall not prevent the Assembly, or the committee or sub-committee by whom the arrangements are made, from exercising those functions.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 207:
Page 26, line 17. at end insert—
("() Subsections (1) to (1B) of section 45 above shall apply in relation to a meeting of a committee or sub-committee of the Assembly as they apply in relation to a meeting of the Assembly.").
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood had given notice of her intention to move, as an amendment to Amendment No. 207, Amendment No. 207A:
Line 2, leave out ("(1) to (1B)") and insert ("(1A) and (1B)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend, I can safely say that the Minister's explanation clearly indicated the correct meaning of Amendment No. 207 and our worries have been removed.
However, the way in which the amendments to Clause 45 have been laid out is extremely confusing. Perhaps one of these days we shall find a clearer way of numbering our amendments. I shall not move my amendment.
[Amendment No. 207A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 207, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 207 agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 208:
Page 26, line 17, at end insert—
("() Subsections (1) to (2) above are subject to any express provision contained in this Act or any Act passed after this Act.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whiny Lord Whiny moved Amendments Nos. 209 and 210:
After Clause 46, insert the following new clause—
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEES AND SUB-COMMITTEES
(" .—(1) For the purpose of discharging, in pursuance of arrangements under section 46(1)(a) above, any functions exercisable by the Assembly —

(a) the Assembly may appoint a committee of the Assembly (an "ordinary committee"); and

(b) an ordinary committee may appoint one or more subcommittees ("ordinary sub-committees").

(2) Subject to the provisions of this section—

(a) the number of members, and

(b) their term of office,

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

(a) may consist of such persons (whether Assembly members or not) appointed for such term as may be determined by the Assembly; and

(b) may appoint one or more sub-committees ("advisory sub-committees") to advise the committee with respect to any matter on which the committee has been appointed to advise.").

After Clause 46, insert the following new clause—
MINUTES
(" .—(1) Minutes of the proceedings of a meeting of the Assembly, or of any committee or sub-committee of the Assembly, shall be kept in such form as the Assembly may determine.
(2) Any such minutes shall be signed at the same or next suitable meeting of the Assembly, committee or sub-committee by the person presiding at that meeting.
(3) Any minute purporting to be signed as mentioned in subsection (2) above shall be received in evidence without further proof.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (2) above, the next suitable meeting of the Assembly, or of a committee or sub-committee of the Assembly, is their next following meeting or, where standing orders of the Authority provide for another meeting to be regarded as suitable, either the next following meeting or that other meeting.
(5) In the application of this section in the case of a meeting of the Assembly under section 44(2) above, "minutes" includes—

(a) the text of any question put pursuant to section 44(2) above at the meeting, and

(b) the text of the answer given to any such question,

whether the question was put, or the answer given, orally or in writing.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 47 [Political composition of Assembly committees]:
Lord. Whitty Lord. Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 211 and 212:
Page 26, line 21, after ("its") insert ("ordinary committees and advisory").
Page 26, line 22, after ("ordinary") insert ("or, as the case may be, advisory").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 48 [Openness]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 213:
Page 26, line 29, after ("council,") insert ("and

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

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 214:
Page 26, line 38, at end insert—
("(2A) In the following provisions of that Act, namely

(a) section 100A(2) (which requires the exclusion of the public from meetings and makes other provision to prevent disclosure of confidential information in breach of the obligation of confidence), and

(b) section 100D(4) (which prevents the inclusion in a list of documents of any document which would so disclose such information),

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

(a) any information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person which was acquired in consequence of a relationship between that person and a relevant body;

(b) the amount of any expenditure proposed to be incurred by a relevant body under any particular contract, if and so long as disclosure would be likely to give an advantage to a person entering into, or seeking to enter into, a contract with the relevant body, whether the advantage would arise against the relevant body or another such person;

(c) any terms proposed or to be proposed by or to a relevant body in the course of negotiations for any particular contract, if and so long as disclosure would prejudice the relevant body in those or any other negotiations concerning the subject matter of the contract;

(d) the identity of any person as the person offering any particular tender for a contract for the supply of goods or services to a relevant body;

and in this subsection "relevant body" means Transport for London or the London Development Agency.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 214 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 217. Amendment No. 214 modifies the assembly's openness arrangements under Clause 48 of the Bill. Its effect is to place a duty on the assembly not to disclose to the public certain kinds of commercially sensitive information relating to transport for London or the LDA without the consent of the body concerned.
The amendment narrowly defines that information. In essence, we are talking about information about the financial or business affairs of any person which TfL or the LDA has obtained as a result of the relationship with that person.
TfL and the LDA will be executive, businesslike organisations. Much of their business is bound to be about commercial matters. If they are not to be put at a commercial disadvantage, they will need to be able to ensure that they are able to guarantee the same degree of commercial confidentiality to people with whom they do business as a local authority. Clearly, the

601
assembly will be able to obtain information from Transport for London and the London Development Agency using its powers under Clause 51, including commercially sensitive information. The issue here is a limitation on their ability to disclose it.
Amendment No. 217 clarifies that the modified version of Part VA of the Local Government Act 1972—that is, the openness arrangements under Clause 48—applies to assembly committees and subcommittees in the same way that Part VA of the 1972 Act applies to committees and subcommittees of principal councils. It is a clarifying amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, the Minister will not be surprised to know that I have some concerns as regards this amendment. Clause 48 applies the local government access to information laws to the DLA, with some certain changes. The local government regime provides two exceptions to the right of public access to meetings and also to related documents.
The first is confidential information—Section 100A(2) of the Local Government Act 1972—which the council may not disclose. In local government this is information provided by a government department on terms banning that disclosure, or information banned by an enactment of a court from disclosure. The other group is the exempt information; namely, Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, which the council "may" prohibit disclosure of. In local government this includes personal information, tender details, the identity of tenderers and legal advice.
The Government wish to insert subsections (2A) and (2B) into Clause 48. This would extend the definition of "confidential information" to financial arrangements between TfL or the LDA and third parties. It is then for TfL or the LDA to decide—it is their decision—whether this information can be debated publicly by the assembly. We believe that the information should be treated merely as exempt information and that it should be for the assembly, not TfL or the LDA, to decide whether or not it can be made public.
The assembly can be expected to behave sensibly, as councils always do about exempt information, and not release such information without a very good reason. However, we feel very strongly that it should be the assembly which makes the decision and not the two functional bodies, as this amendment proposes. In my view, the Government's proposed insertion of subsections 2(A) and 2(B) would actually weaken the whole provision; it should not happen.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the objective of this amendment is to ensure that the functional bodies can engage in a degree of commercial activity, with the understanding that they are able to do so without putting those people with whom they do business in
602
the position of being in danger of having their personal financial and commercial information divulged by someone else.
TfL and the LDA are public bodies and would need to consider such matters. They are also subject to a degree of openness and public accountability. Like a local authority, they would have to make a judgment as to whether they would be prepared to release that information. Therefore, both TfL and the LDA are in the equivalent role to that of a local authority dealing with people on business and commercial matters; the assembly is at one stage removed from that situation. The provision is that the assembly should only divulge that information if TfL and the LDA agree. The analogy is not the local authority with the assembly. In this context, it is the local authority and the "functional bodies".
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I hear what the Minister says and, in general cases, I would be very happy to accept it. However, does he accept that there might be a query here in a case where there is an instance of corrupt practice? Let us suppose that such a situation arose between a body like TfL and a commercial contractor. In such a case, TfL might have an interest in, shall we say, concealing exactly what had happened. In fact, it might be for the assembly to reveal what was going on; indeed, that could be the only way in which the public could be satisfied that the whole process was proper.
Unfortunately, here we have to consider not only what happens when everyone is honest; we also have to consider those other circumstances when someone behaves in a dishonest fashion. That has to be handled properly and the mechanisms have to be there for the purpose. Therefore, in such a situation, there is reason to suppose that some sort of dispensation might be required.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, exactly the same situation can, regrettably, arrive in a local authority. There is no provision for someone else to take such a decision when the local authority is engaged in a commercial relationship which might not be in the interests of the public. Indeed, there may be some corruption in a local authority or connivance at corruption. There is no provision that someone else, apart from public authorities—in certain circumstances, the ombudsman and in others the police and criminal proceedings—would deal with the matter. In those circumstances, we would be in a different situation. But the local authority is the equivalent of the LDA or TfL in these circumstances, not the assembly.
There is also the role of chief finance officer to consider in these circumstances, as would be the case within a local authority. As I said earlier, the analogy is not between a normal local authority and the assembly; it is between a normal local authority and the LDA. Exactly the same criminal and investigatory provisions would apply to the LDA and TfL in those circumstances, as would apply in a local authority.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 215 to 217:
Page 26, line 38, at end insert—
("() In section 100C of that Act (inspection of minutes and other documents after meetings) any reference to the minutes of a meeting shall, in the case of a meeting of the Assembly under section 44(2) above, be taken to include a reference to—

(a) the text of any question put pursuant to section 44(2) above at the meeting, and

(b) the text of the answer given to any such question,

whether the question was put, or the answer given, orally or in writing.").
Page 26, line 38, at end insert—
("() Nothing in section 100D (inspection of background papers) requires or authorises the inclusion in any such list as is referred to in subsection (1) of that section of any document which discloses anything which, by virtue of subsection (4) of section 37 above, is not required to be disclosed under subsection (3) or (3A) of that section.").
Page 26, line 38, at end insert—
("() In section 100E of that Act (application to committees and sub-committees) subsection (3)(e) shall have effect as if section (Assembly committees and sub-committees) above were included among the enactments specified in section 101(9) of that Act.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 218 not moved.]
Clause 49 [Review and investigation]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 219:
Page 27, line 15, after ("exercisable") insert ("and any other functions exercised").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a small amendment and one which has been tabled to enable the Government, I hope, to give me an assurance on a point which slightly troubles me. Clause 49(1) provides for the assembly to,
"keep under review the exercise by the Mayor of the statutory functions exercisable by him".
The word "statutory" made me pause because the clause could also have referred to,
"the exercise of the functions exercisable by him".
I wonder whether "statutory" is in any way restrictive. That is why I tabled this amendment, which provides that the assembly should keep under review the exercise of "any other functions" actually exercised by the mayor. If the word is restrictive, I would be concerned for the following reason.
We have had a number of debates, including one this afternoon on the state of London's public health, and we have been assured by the Government that there is nothing in the Bill to stop the mayor undertaking this sort of review, a report on public health and various other matters which have been discussed during the course of our debates on the Bill. It seems to me that the assembly should quite properly review the exercise of those functions by the mayor, as well as those spelled out on the face of the Bill. My amendment
604
seeks assurance that everything the mayor does is to be kept under review through this provision. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I believe that I can give the noble Baroness the assurance she seeks. The mayor cannot act except in pursuit of a statutory function. Activities for which there is no express statutory provision will be carried out either under the general power in Clause 25 or the subsidiary powers in Clause 28. That would include activities such as the pursuit of the health report which we debated earlier. I can also assure the noble Baroness that the term "exercisable" includes functions which have been exercised as well as those which have not. Therefore I believe that she will find her concerns covered by this amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am grateful for that reply. I realise that "exercisable" must mean those functions which the mayor has not actually exercised—that is, of course, the point of the exercise.
One concern arose from a point I have made before, which is the distinction between powers and functions. The Minister has confirmed that although the exercise arises from a statutory power, it is nevertheless within those provisions because it is a statutory function. I am looking to the Minister to confirm that in terms, if he will nod—he has nodded. I am grateful for that and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 50 [Proposals to the Mayor]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 220:
Page 27, line 25, leave out ("resolves by a majority of Assembly members present and voting") and insert ("decides").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 51[Power to require attendance at Assembly meetings]:
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 221:
Page 27, line 32, leave out (", (3), (4)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 224, 225 and 235. My noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith will speak to Amendments Nos. 222 and 223.
The small group of amendments to Clauses 51 and 53 to which I am speaking cover a large subject. I am returning to it because, having read the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, at Committee stage, I am still unhappy about the draconian and exceptional powers which are proposed for the Greater London Authority to summon people before it. I am disappointed that, having heard what we had to say on the subject, the Government have not introduced any modifications to eliminate the larger absurdities to which, as we pointed out, the provisions give rise.
Amendment No. 221 is simply a paving amendment to Amendment No. 224, which calls for the deletion of subsections (3) and (4). Those two subsections give the assembly power to summon before it three categories of persons; first, any person who has within the

605
preceding three years had a contractual relationship with the authority. Secondly, a person who has within the preceding three years received a grant from the authority. Thirdly, a member of any body—I am assuming that that will usually be a company, but it could be a different sort of organisation—or an employee of such a body.
Under Clause 54, any person who, without reasonable excuse, fails to attend, or to answer questions, or to produce documents, is to be guilty of a criminal offence and liable to a fine at current rates of up to £5,000 or even three months in prison. These subsections even purport to confer extra-territorial powers on the authority. In Committee I gave the example of a non-English speaking clerk employed by a firm in Greece being summoned to give evidence under the totally unenforceable threat of the criminal sanctions of Clause 54.
In fact the provisions are even more absurd than I thought when I first considered this clause. The employee, or member who is summoned, need not have been involved in the company at the time that the contract was performed or the grant was given. What value will his evidence have, except perhaps to provide the bait for any fishing expedition that the assembly may choose to launch?
We absolutely do not argue with the need for the assembly to be able to obtain information about its affairs from those having dealings with it. The way to do that is to provide in the contract or offer of grant that it is conditional upon the recipient co-operating with any reasonable request for an account of those dealings. That is what happens in any normal commercial relationship. Failure to comply would give the authority the right to complain to the civil courts about a breach of contract, and to obtain a mandatory injunction requiring the third party to comply.
Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether it is proposed that every contract with the authority will contain a health warning about the contractor and his employees present and future, to the effect that they can be dragged before the authority to give evidence under the threat of being jailed for three months. Or will the contractor be presumed to know the law, even if the subpoena comes as a complete surprise to him?
Perhaps I may point out to the Government that this clause, in an exceptionally badly drafted and cobbled-together Bill, includes also in this particular area one giant defect. It empowers the summoning of persons who are members or employees of the company or organisation being investigated, but what about the past members or employees? There is no power in the clause to summon even the chap who left hurriedly the day after he got wind of the impending subpoena—I refer to the one who really knows what happened and where the body might be buried.
Far be it from me to invite the Government to include even more regulations. But as I have said, the Government have clearly not thought out the ramifications of this unusual power which it seeks to give to the authority.
Amendment No. 225 calls for the deletion of Clause 53 (10). That subsection refers to persons appointed under Clauses 56(1) and 56(2). Persons appointed under Clause 56(1) consist of the two political advisors and up to 10 other members of staff all personally working for the mayor. Persons appointed under Clause 56(2) are additional staff members appointed by the assembly to assist the mayor, after taking into account any views of the mayor. Although part of the mayor's staff, both categories of employee are to be treated as employees of the authority. They are accommodated and paid for by the authority out of public funds. That is specifically provided for by Clause 56(3).
What does Clause 51(10) provide in relation to those publicly-funded assistants to the mayor? It provides them with an exemption from being required to give any evidence, or from producing any documents relating to any advice given by them to the mayor. The subsection provides for an elite class of public servants, enjoying an exemption not enjoyed by the staff of Cabinet Ministers. We have all seen civil servants right up to the rank of the Cabinet Secretary himself being called to account before committees of the other place. There is, I know, an argument that if advisers cannot give their masters advice in confidence, then it makes their task difficult, if not impossible. We are talking here about publicly paid advisers, not ones funded by the mayor personally or by his party. We are discussing this in the context of the proposition that,
"The assembly must be able to undertake the proper scrutiny of the actions of the mayor and the staff of the authority".—[Official Report, 23/6/99; col. 1041.]
Those are not my words; they are the words of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, when responding to the earlier stage of this group of amendments. It will be noted that the noble Lord was referring to the staff of the authority. By the definition in Clause 56(3), which I have just quoted, those advisers are staff of the authority. How can their actions and those of the mayor be "properly scrutinised", in the words of the noble Lord, if the questions which they can be asked are so severely constrained as to make their testimony virtually useless?
Clause 59(4) requires that those special advisers and personal staff members must attend every statutory monthly meeting of the assembly where their presence is requested and must answer any questions put to them by members of the assembly. I repeat: any questions. They will not be subject to the special privileges set out in Clause 51(10). That total contradiction is, of course, typical of the way in which this Bill has been drafted.
Amendment No. 235 is a minor drafting amendment to Clause 54 which I propose solely for the purposes of clarity.
Clause 53 empowers the Secretary of State to prescribe what information persons who are summoned before the assembly are entitled to refuse or to give or what documents they are entitled to refuse or to produce. That is all well and good. However, Clause 54(3) also gives the witness an important

607
exemption from answering questions or producing documents if he could refuse to do so in court proceedings. An example would be something that might incriminate the witness or to which some privilege attached; for example, solicitor and client. The amendment makes clear that the ministerial exemption under Clause 53 does not interfere with the exemption under Clause 54(3).
I have already drawn attention to the inconsistency between Clause 51(10), exempting advisers from testifying, and Clause 59(4), which says that they must do so. In Committee I challenged the Minister to say when?, similar powers existed in local government. With his usual candour, the noble Lord said:
"The noble Baroness is right to say that this is unique to local government, as indeed are the powers of the mayor and the authority".
That is what is so worrying. Clearly, this Bill and the creation of the Greater London authority will be used as the precedent for the creation of further similar bodies: London today; Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool, Bristol, and goodness knows where else tomorrow.
9 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, what about Newcastle?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: Perhaps even, my Lords, Newcastle, if the noble Lord, Lord Graham, would like that too. There are also the regional assemblies which the Government are threatening to inflict on us.
Is every one of these authorities to be free to set up its own inquisition with powers that, as the Minister admits quite rightly, are unprecedented, except, quite rightly, in the hands of the sovereign Parliament? We agree that the assembly must have proper powers to scrutinise the operations both of the mayor and of the whole authority of which it is an integral part. That is its entire purpose. However, the powers which the Government propose to grant are entirely unprecedented. They are backed by sanctions, as mentioned earlier, which equate their breach with all but the most serious of crimes. They are unworkable powers in the case of witnesses out of the jurisdiction of the authority and they discriminate against UK residents. They are contained in a group of clauses which, as I have pointed out, are not only inconsistent with each other but have that major drafting error about employees who have already left the employment of the company involved.
Given that it is accepted that the assembly must have powers to make all proper investigations and inquiries, the Government must frame those powers in more direct and restrained terms. That is what those amendments seek to do. I very much hope the Minister will give this matter serious thought because it is a very serious problem, apart from being quite unprecedented. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, far from there being an inconsistency of drafting, I find the Opposition Front Bench's argument somewhat inconsistent. They were
608
trying to extend the ability of the assembly to acquire information which might be regarded as commercially confidential or personal. Now we are in a situation where noble Lords opposite are opposing as excessive powers that the assembly should have for perfectly legitimate inquiries and information. I do not consider those powers to be excessive. It is important that the assembly, in order to fulfil its scrutiny role, should undertake proper scrutiny of the actions of the mayor and the staff of the authority. It is for the assembly to ascertain whether persons who have a contract have fulfilled that contract and, if they have received a grant, have used it for the purposes for which it is given, subject to the caveat which was included in the earlier clauses.
If we were to curtail the assembly's powers of summons, as is proposed by the noble Baroness, the assembly would be unable to carry out one of the most important aspects of its work; namely, ensuring that public funds, for which the authority was responsible, were not misused. Certainly, Amendments Nos. 221 and 224 in the name of the noble Baroness would not be acceptable.
At this point I shall curtail my remarks and allow the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, to speak.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. As regards Amendment No. 222, I must confess that I tabled those amendments thinking that I had found a gap in the armour of the Bill. Subsequently, I found that I had not because, of course, the position of the mayor is covered by subsection (5)(c). Therefore, I shall not pursue Amendment No. 222.
Amendment No. 223 deals with the question of someone who has been chairman of a functional body in the previous three years. There is no requirement for the chairman of a functional body to be either the mayor or a member of the assembly. If the mayor chooses to be a member of Transport for London, he shall be the chairman. However, Schedule 8 stipulates that the chairman will be one of the members of TFL and it is only at paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 8 that it states:
"Where the Mayor is a member … he shall be the chairman".
It therefore follows that the chairman of Transport for London could be an independent individual appointed to that office. As I read Clause 51, there are no means by which a former chairman can technically be called as a witness in an examination undertaken by the assembly. It may be that I have missed something here, but I do not believe that I have. If that is the case, the provisions of Amendment No. 223 would help the assembly and would help the Government because it would provide consistency.
It is important that people who have served as chairmen of functional bodies, where they might be ordinary mortals who have been pulled in and appointed for what are good and proper reasons, should be capable of being examined by the assembly in those years immediately following the time they served as chairmen. They might reasonably be

609
expected to have knowledge of and to have been responsible for decisions made by those functional bodies which may require examination.
This is a small, technical point, and is not designed to trip up anyone. Indeed, it is intended to be helpful, and it is on that basis that I have tabled the measure.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I take the point made by the noble Lord on the last amendment. I have been advised that the chair and therefore former chairs of TfL can be summoned. I shall need to check the reference, but I am sure that that is the case. However, I shall write to the noble Lord to give the exact reference.
I shall now return to my speech, to comply with proceedings at Report stage. The noble Baroness referred to the unique criminal sanctions implied in these clauses. It is true—the noble Baroness has quoted me on this—that these are not sanctions which apply in the rest of local government. Nevertheless, they do apply, for example, in relation to the Welsh Assembly. We believe that the position of the mayor is such that equivalent powers are needed to ensure that the scrutiny powers of the assembly in London, as with the assembly in Wales, provide that they can interrogate people to the same degree. That will require some sanction. We regard that as important in order to carry out the duty.
The noble Baroness also referred to the exemption for the private staff of the mayor. In a sense that returns to an earlier debate. It relates to advice rather than to information, and refers to advice which is of the same category as the advice of senior civil servants to Ministers. I know that there are doubts about the provision in the House. However, we have consistently maintained that that advice should be exempt from the disclosure requirements.
Finally, I turn to Amendment No. 235, to which I believe the noble Baroness referred. I am disappointed that the assurance I gave in Committee did not satisfy the noble Baroness. However, the fact is that this matter is covered and the amendment is unnecessary. Clause 54(3) exempts people who are summoned from having to give evidence to the assembly which they would be entitled to refuse to give were they in a court in England or Wales. The provisions of Clause 53 could not in any circumstances override or affect the provisions of Clause 54, and therefore there is no need for this additional cross-reference. They are already protected. I hope therefore that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord will not press the amendments.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I shall certainly accept what the Minister has said and I shall not press the amendments further this evening. However, I should like it to be put on the record that I am disappointed. However, having said that I am disappointed, I am sure that the Minister will feel quite the opposite and be extremely pleased that I do not intend to press the amendments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 222 not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 223:
Page 27, line 41, after ("is") insert (", or who has in the previous three years served as,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, subject to the Minister satisfying me that the point has been covered, I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 223 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 224 and 225 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 226:
Page 29, line 8, at end insert—
("(10A) Nothing in this section shall require a person who is—

(a) a member of a functional body, or

(b) a member of staff of a functional body,

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

(a) the Metropolitan Police Authority, or

(b) the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority,

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

(a) at a meeting of, or of a committee or sub-committee of, the functional body at a time when the meeting was open to members of the public by virtue of Part VA of the Local Government Act 1972 (access to meetings and documents); or

(b) in a document which has been open to inspection by members of the public by virtue of that Part of that Act.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, Amendment No. 226 was in the same group as Amendment No. 136 which the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, withdrew on the basis that he would take it away and reconsider it. I am not saying that it is forbidden, but it is certainly unusual within a grouping to withdraw one amendment but leave the other. The amendment that has been withdrawn related to the definition of the word "advice". The significance of the definition of the word "advice" comes in this clause, Clause 51. The clause deals with the assembly's power to require attendance of witnesses to give such advice, and so forth, so perhaps all these provisions should be considered together.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I think that I made it clear at an earlier stage—I probably made it excessively clear—that I was concerned only about the definition of "advice" which arises under Amendments Nos. 136 and 228 which, when we come to it, I shall not move.
I did not undertake to withdraw Amendment No. 226, as I thought that I had made clear earlier. That may be a bit unusual, but I was intending to be

611
very specific that the provisions that I was withdrawing related to the definition of "advice" rather than the principle. I would therefore like to move Amendment No. 226, if that is acceptable. I see that the noble Lord the Opposition Chief Whip is about to raise something procedural. I am sure that we would not want to fall out too far over this. I shall listen to what the noble Lord has to say.
Lord Henley: My Lords, before my noble friend responds, I have to say that I find this somewhat extraordinary. As I understand it—obviously, I was not present when Amendment No. 136 was debated—Amendment No. 226 was grouped with it. The noble Lord withdrew that, and his group. No doubt other noble Lords who took some interest in the group then decided to disappear because they thought that that amendment was not likely to come up later. My noble friend has now made the point that she thinks that this amendment was withdrawn at that stage. It would be unusual for the noble Lord to try to press ahead with it. I accept that the whole thing is perfectly within order We all know the mantra at the top of the groupings list, which states:
"Although every effort has been made to secure agreement to these groupings, they remain informal",
but I think that that is slightly more binding on the Government than on the Opposition. We think that it is fairly peculiar for the Government to start behaving in such a manner whereas we all understand perfectly well when Back-Benchers wish to decouple such groupings. The noble Lord should give us a slightly better explanation before my noble friend decides how to exercise her particular rights.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Henley, is making such a meal of this, I believe—and I think that the record will show—that I made quite clear which provisions I was taking away for another look. Nevertheless, in the interests of proceeding with this Bill, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment and to come back at Third Reading.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 227:
Page 29, line 9, leave out (", 53 and 54") and insert ("to (Proceedings under section 51(1): openness)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall also speak to Amendments. Nos. 229 and 236. This group of amendments clarifies that the assembly's openness arrangements under Clause 48 apply to proceedings held under Clause 51. It also adapts those arrangements, where necessary, to take account of special features of assembly hearings.
That means that assembly hearings will generally be open to the public and the papers supplied by witnesses, minutes of the hearings and records of oral evidence will generally all be open to public inspection. The usual rules on excluding the public from meetings and not disclosing papers and minutes will apply in line for those with local authorities generally.
The main changes to the usual arrangements are as follows. Papers supplied by witnesses and transcripts or other records of evidence will be available for inspection as if they were reports or minutes for any assembly meeting. Rights to inspect background papers will apply to any papers in addition to those summoned which witnesses provide and to papers prepared for assembly members to use for the hearing. These amendments clarify the arrangements for the openness of assembly hearings. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 228 not moved.]
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 229:
Page 29, line 16, at end insert ("and

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

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 230:
Page 29, line 16, at end insert—
("() The Assembly shall not refuse a request by the Mayor that it invites to attend its proceedings the Secretary of State or any person who has, within the previous 5 years, been the Secretary of State for the purpose of explaining any guidance or direction or draft guidance or direction given or proposed to be given by him under this Act.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, from time to time during debates on this Bill we have mentioned that the Secretary of State will have very considerable powers over the Greater London Authority, both the mayor and the assembly. He will have power to issue guidance on a range of matters to require a number of things to be done. It is entirely reasonable that the Secretary of State should be expected, when required, to come to the assembly and to the mayor to answer questions and give explanations as to why he has issued guidance and other matters which perhaps need clarification.
We discussed this in Committee. At that time our amendment said that the assembly may require the Secretary of State to attend. There was concern, which we did not accept in the sense that we agreed with it. However, we accepted that there was concern that that would be a blurring of responsibilities and would somehow imply that the Secretary of Stale was accountable to the assembly whereas he or she is accountable to Parliament.
We now have a different wording which takes care of that point very well. The amendment states,
"The Assembly shall not refuse a request by the Mayor that it invites to attend its proceedings the Secretary of State".
When such an invitation is issued, I hope that the Secretary of State will give it all the weight and consideration it deserves. He or she should be prepared to attend and explain the reasons for the guidance that has been issued and be prepared to answer questions in the same way through this legislation as he requires others to do. That is the purpose of this amendment.
In responding to it I hope that the Government will recognise that we have acknowledged their concern about the blurring of the lines of responsibility and that we have tried to deal with it. We accept that the Secretary of State is not accountable to the assembly but to and through Parliament. Nevertheless, there is a reasonable expectation that, should an invitation be issued, the Secretary of State will be prepared to attend.
The other issue which we have come up against many times is the division of powers. Again, this amendment makes it very clear that power rests with the mayor, not the assembly, to request that an invitation be issued. I hope that we have dealt with the only concerns raised by the Minister in responding to the previous amendment. We have tried to meet them in this amendment. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will feel able to meet us on this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I understood the purpose of the noble Lord's previous amendment, but I do not really understand the purpose of this one. The purpose of the previous amendment was to require the Secretary of State to appear before the assembly. It is worth legislating for that. In my view it cut across the accountability of the Secretary of State and I opposed it. Nevertheless, it seemed a matter for legislation.
However, what we are discussing here is the ability of the mayor and the assembly to invite the Secretary of State to attend. That implies that he does not need to. Clearly, he can be advised and he can request an invitation. He or she can also try to persuade the assembly to invite the mayor. But I do not see that as a matter for legislation. Unless there are some powers or duties involved I do not see the point of this amendment.
I hope that from time to time the assembly will invite the Secretary of State or his or her successors to attend. As I have said, there are no powers or duties involved here. It is a question of sensible political relationships. It is not a matter for legislation.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, will he not agree that a provision framed in these terms is very close to the point that the Secretary of State may give guidance and so forth? It is not dissimilar in terms of powers or otherwise.
Lord Whitty: No, my Lords. This gives a power to the Secretary of State to issue guidance which must then be observed. This is simply a question of political relationships, not of powers, duties or functions, which are the business of legislation.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I am sorry that the Minister does not recognise what we are trying to achieve here—or perhaps he does. Maybe it is a matter for legislation. I can certainly envisage, without too much difficulty, a situation where the mayor may wish the Secretary of State to come but the assembly may not.
614
Indeed, as with an earlier government amendment on a different issue, it is to be clear as to where the final decision rests. If I quote the Minister correctly from earlier this evening, "the final decision rests with the mayor". If the mayor wishes the Secretary of State to come, it is not for the assembly to refuse.
The Minister has not given us an answer, even within the need for legal definition; nor has he given us any indication as to whether he accepts that it is reasonable that the Secretary of State should come. I know he does not accept that it is reasonable that the Secretary of State may be required to come. However, he has given us no reasonable expectation that the Secretary of State, and any predecessor secretaries of state, should come to the assembly if so invited by the mayor.
I can see that I shall not get further with this tonight. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 52 [Procedure for requiring attendance.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 231 to 233:
Page 29, line 19, leave out from beginning to ("is") in line 21 and insert ("an ordinary committee of the Assembly, if the committee").
Page 29, line 22, leave out ("a simple majority of those present and voting at a meeting of the whole") and insert ("the").
Page 29, line 24, at end insert—
("() Except in the case of a committee which is authorised by standing orders to exercise the powers of the Assembly under section 51(1) above, section 46 above shall not apply in relation to—

(a) the Assembly's function of deciding to exercise its powers under section 51(1) above; or

(b) the Assembly's function under subsection (1) above of authorising a committee to exercise those powers.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 234:
Page 29, line 26, leave out ("Chief Administrative Officer of the Authority") and insert ("head of the Authority's paid service").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 234, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 261 to 266 and 334.
This group of amendments looks complex but is not. Amendment No. 234 simply anticipates an amendment we are making to Clause 61. The other amendments seek to clarify the respective roles of the mayor and assembly in relation to the provision of resources for the head of paid service and the monitoring officer. These are dealt with respectively in Amendments Nos. 264 and 266. Both provide for the mayor to provide accommodation and other resources for the two officers and for the assembly to provide their staff.
Amendments Nos. 261 and 265 provide for the head of paid service and the monitoring officer to be appointed as members of staff under the provisions of Clause 56(2) of the Bill. That prevents either office

615
being held by staff appointed by the mayor. The same is true in the case of the chief finance officer, which is why Amendment No. 334 also appears in this group.
The procedures for handling reports submitted to the authority by either the head of paid service or the monitoring officer are also provided for in these amendments.
The provision in the Bill which required that the head of paid service should be known as the chief administrative officer has been criticised as being too prescriptive. On reflection, we agree. That requirement is deleted by Amendment No. 263. I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, perhaps I may raise a query as regards Amendment No. 265, which adds a massive chunk to Clause 62. The monitoring officer obviously has wide responsibilities across the area of the Greater London Authority. The amendment states that in this subsection "GLA body or person" means the Greater London Authority, Transport for London, the London Development Agency, the mayor of London, the London assembly, and so on.
I have clearly missed something because there is no mention of the Metropolitan Police or the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, which are existing bodies. Presumably they have their own existing monitoring arrangements. Provided I am given an assurance by the Minister that that is so and that such existing functions will continue in future, I shall be perfectly happy. If not, one needs to think about this.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is right. They have their own monitoring officers.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 53 [Restriction of information]:
[Amendment No. 235 not moved.]
9.30 p m.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 236:
After Clause 54, insert the following new clause—
PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 51(1): OPENNESS
(" .—(1) In its application by virtue of section 48 above, Part VA of the Local Government Act 1972 (access to meetings and documents of certain authorities, committees and sub-committees), so far as relating to any proceedings under section 51(1) above ("the evidentiary proceedings"), shall have effect with the following additional modifications.
(2) In section 100B (access to agenda and connected reports) any reference to a report for a meeting includes a reference to any document (other than the agenda) supplied before, and for the purposes of, the evidentiary proceedings (a "relevant document").
(3) If a report or relevant document is supplied less than three clear days before the evidentiary proceedings, copies of the report or document shall be open to inspection by the public under subsection (1) of that section from the time such copies are available to Assembly members, notwithstanding anything in subsection (3) of section 100B.
(4) In section 1000 (inspection of minutes and other documents after meetings)—

(a) any reference to the minutes of a meeting shall be taken to include a reference to a transcript or other record of evidence given in the course of the evidentiary proceedings; and

(b) any reference to a report for the meeting includes a reference to a relevant document.

(5) In section 100D (inspection of background papers) any reference in subsections (1) to (4) to background papers for a report (or part of a report) shall be taken as a reference to any additional documents supplied by a witness.
(6) In this section, "additional documents supplied by a witness" means documents supplied, whether before, during or after the evidentiary proceedings,—

(a) by a person attending to give evidence at the proceedings, and

(b) for the use of Assembly members in connection with the proceedings,

but does not include any document which is a relevant document.
(7) In section 100F (additional rights of access for members) subsections (2) to (4) shall not have effect in relation to documents which contain material relating to any business to be transacted at the evidentiary proceedings.
(8) In section 100H (supplemental provisions and offences) in subsection (6), in the definition of "accessible documents"—

(a) the reference in paragraph (d) to a report for the meeting includes a reference to a relevant document; and

(b) the reference in paragraph (e) to background papers for a report for a meeting shall be taken as a reference to any additional documents supplied by a witness.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 55 [The Secretary of State's guidance on ethical standards]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 237:
Page 30, line 35, leave out from ("for") to end of line 36 and insert—

("(a) the Mayor;

(b) the Assembly members;

(c) members of the Authority's staff; and

(d) persons not falling within paragraphs (a) to (c) above who are members of advisory committees or subcommittees of the Assembly.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 238:
Page 30, line 38, at beginning insert ("disposal,").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 238. I shall speak also to Amendment No. 244. Both amendments deal with ethical standards.
An obvious but important point is that the mayor must observe the highest ethical standards and must be seen to do so. Therefore, we have tabled amendments that are similar to those that we tabled in Committee.
The amendments provide that the guidance to be issued by the Secretary of State shall deal not only with the disclosure of interests, but also with the disposal of interests—the disposal of assets. Amendment No. 244 provides that the code of conduct to be observed by the mayor shall be as close as possible to the code of conduct to be observed by Ministers of the Crown.
The objections raised at the previous stage of the Bill to a code relating to the mayor being close to the ministerial code were as follows. First, there will be a new framework for the whole of local government, although the Government accepted that the mayor will be in a particular position in regard to his executive powers. We agree that that will be the case, so it is particularly important that the code of conduct should be observed.
The second objection was that the mayor cannot be regarded as exactly parallel with ministers, as they are part of a collective executive. The mayor is directly elected to take decisions. Again, we agree with that and that his election will be on the implicit basis that the mayor will act with complete propriety.
The final objection was that the ministerial code has no statutory force, but nor will guidance.
The objections to the reference to the disposal of assets—for instance, into a blind trust—were that that would pre-empt the guidance to be issued by the Secretary of State. At the time, I thought that that was not as full an answer as may be given. One could describe it as a little thin. In any event, I believe that the guidance should cover the point.
At the previous stage of the Bill, we were told that a draft of guidance would be available before the Report stage. Indeed, it is now available. It was waiting for me when I arrived home Tuesday night or Wednesday morning. I accept that it is a draft code for consultation. References to such issues are made in the code at paragraph 2.7:
"The Mayor and Deputy Mayor may dispose of any relevant interests if they consider that this would be the best way of demonstrating that decisions were not affected by any personal interests".
Paragraph 2.8 says,
"The Mayor and Deputy Mayor are free to place investments … into a blind trust if they consider that this would be the best way of demonstrating that decisions were not affected by any personal interests".
The paragraph goes on to explain what a "blind trust" is.
Indeed, the mayor and deputy mayor are free to dispose of interests. They are free to put their assets into a blind trust. Neither of those is in any way mandatory, at any rate to the extent that a non-statutory code can be mandatory. I accept that to put the provisions in the Bill, since they would be in the context of guidance, would not make them mandatory, but it would indicate Parliament's view of the importance of the issues.
One of the questions for consultation asks about blind trusts and this is an opportunity for your Lordships to make the point that this is important and that the guidance should be stronger than as currently proposed. A reference in legislation to non-statutory matters is not inappropriate given that the provision, by its nature as set out in the Bill, is not statutory and that it is a provision that is capable of being varied.
These are two important matters. I am able to make the point in an entirely non-personal way. This is no implication as to how any future mayor may conduct himself or herself and the points are easily made before we have a mayor. In other words, it is important to set out the most proper code of conduct before we embark on this important exercise of creating London's new government. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the intention of Clause 55 is to provide ethical guidance. As the noble Baroness indicated, a consultation paper has been published on ethical guidance and aspects of that are similar to ministerial ethical guidance, but other aspects would not be entirely transposable into the ethical guidance for the mayor. The number of issues to which the noble Baroness referred—for instance, blind trusts—are out for consultation. If there were to be a legal case, guidance would be a material consideration and we must try to get it right. However, it seems slightly peculiar to write on the face of the Bill,
"which in the case of the Mayor shall be as close as possible to the code of conduct to be observed by Ministers of the Crown",
whereas it is clear, and even the noble Baroness accepts, that there will be significant differences in terms of the role of the mayor as compared with Ministers.
I accept that there should be effective and clear ethical standards and ethical guidance. I hope that the result of the consultation exercise will give clear steer to the Secretary of State as to how that guidance should be followed. But to accept Amendment No. 244 would be an odd way of achieving the ends that the noble Baroness seeks. Clause 55 already provides for the statutory basis of the ethical guidance and I hope therefore that the noble Baroness will not pursue the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I may have misunderstood him. I do not believe he commented on Amendment No. 238.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Baroness is absolutely correct. I did not comment on the aspect of "disposal".
I believe that this can be taken care of in the total context of the guidance. The ethical guidance can cover disposal of interests by both the mayor and the assembly in various ways. If the two can be taken together, the disposal of interests is not necessarily the same as the disposal of interests for Ministers. However, I may need to consider this matter and write to the noble Baroness. It does not alter the main point in Amendment No. 244, which is overtaken by the fact that we have now—no doubt a little late for the noble Baroness—issued the consultation.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, it is not late; I read it over breakfast this morning.
I would be grateful if the Minister would consider further the point about disposal. The provision, or a

619
similar one, would fit appropriately in Clause 55(2)(a), which states:
"The matters which may be dealt with in any such guidance include —
"(a) disclosure and registration of interests".
Your Lordships may wish to set a higher threshold than disclosure and registration only and include disposal.
I look forward to further consideration of the matter. I should be grateful if the Minister would write to me If we cannot sort out the point between the two of us in writing, we may have to return to it. It is an important matter which should be before your Lordships. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 239 to 243:
Page 30, line 40, leave out ("or") and insert (", any member of the Assembly,").
Page 30, line 40, after ("staff") insert ("or any committee or sub-committee").
Page 30, line 41, after second ("Mayor") insert (", member of the Assembly").
Page 30, line 41, after ("staff") insert (", or a member of the committee or sub-committee,").
Page 30, line 43, after ("member") insert (", or any other person who is a member of an advisory committee or sub-committee,").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 244 not moved]
Clause 56 [Appointment]:
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 245:
Page 31, line 10, at end insert—
("or such numbers of advisers and staff as shall not exceed in aggregate the full time equivalent employees provided by paragraphs (a) and (b) respectively.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 56(1) of the Bill states:
"The Mayor may appoint—

"(a) not more than two persons as his political advisers; and

"(b) not more than ten other members of staff".

I still find it extraordinary that the Government so distrust the mayor and the assembly for all time that they feel it necessary to go into such prescriptive detail in primary legislation. These matters would be much better resolved between the mayor and the assembly in relation to the budget. The important consideration is not so much the number but the cost. We debated that matter in Committee but the Government did not accept the point. I am not sure that they even understood the point.
I am sure that the Minister will recall that I asked in innocence whether the prescriptive numbers of two and 10 related to individuals or to full-time equivalents. The Minister replied, first of all:
"I would have thought that the provision related to full-time equivalents".
620
All reasonable people would have thought that. He went on to say:
"but it seems that my previous understanding needs to be revised, and that it applies to 10 members of staff and two political advisers".—[Official Report, 23/6/99; col. 1053.]
When we pursued the matter still further because we did not believe that answer was credible, the Minister went on to say:
"My initial reaction would be, yes. I think that the noble Baroness's reaction would be yes. My latest understanding, however, indicates that there is a different answer".—[Official Report, 23/6/99; col. 1054.]
In other words, it relates to the number of individuals not at all to the number of full-time equivalents.
I think that the Minister was genuinely surprised by this at the time—as were we all—because it seems to be a nonsense. Even more importantly, it flies in the face of the policy of a Government who talk about family-friendly work practices, flexible working, encouraging part-time workers, many of whom happen to be women, encouraging job-sharing and all such practices. We are now enshrining in primary legislation something that does not allow for any of those provisions but says simply that there are to be two persons as political advisers and 10 other members of staff, whether those individuals work for two or 42 hours a week.
I fully expected to see a government amendment which sorted this matter out and clarified the position. No such amendment has been forthcoming and we are therefore moving this amendment. I hope it will clarify and state what the Government intend. I have to rely on what the Minister said; namely, that what is on the face of the Bill is what is meant, and that the Government's intention is that there should be no allowance for part-time working, job-sharing and so on, but that the political advisers will be two in number, regardless of the hours that they work, and the 10 members of staff will be 10 and no more, regardless, again, of the number of hours that they work or any other job arrangements that may be in place.
I find it incomprehensible that that is prescribed in the Bill in the first place, and especially incomprehensible that a Government who promote family friendly working and flexible working hours should include such a provision in primary legislation. It is beyond belief that two Ministers on the Front Bench, both of whom, as I know from my personal dealings with them, genuinely and strongly espouse family friendly working, flexible working arrangements and so on, should now be about to stand up and defend the provisions in the Bill.
I am confident that the Minister is either about to accept my amendment or to accept that the Government's intention is the same as that in the amendment, that they have merely been overwhelmed by the 500 other amendments that they have had to prepare over the past two weeks, and that they will return at Third Reading with an amendment that actually states what they intend—that these posts should be full-time equivalents, not simply a n umber of individuals regardless of the number of hours they work. I beg to move, and I do so with confidence.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am eternally grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, for a complete re-run of an earlier cock-up by me in relation to the Bill! I am also grateful, naturally, that at a quarter to ten at night we should suddenly remember family friendly policies—all of which we should love to espouse, particularly those of us on the Front Bench.
Nevertheless, I now understand that the amendment is there for a different reason. It is not to impose a limitation on the budget. The cross-references to the limitation on the budget are dealt with in the subsequent amendments. It is intended as a limitation on the mayor, for fear that the mayor may bring in a large number of political appointments which would unbalance the professional staff whom he or she appoints. The mayor is completely free to appoint anyone, for whatever hours and on whatever terms he can negotiate with the individuals concerned. Therefore, in a sense, the point about family friendly hours does not apply. But the total number of people who are political or personal appointees of the mayor needs to be limited in order to reassure those who deal with the authority that it is not full of political apparatchiks, to coin a phrase.
That is the reassurance that the amendment gives; it is not so much a reassurance in terms of the budget. It is important that in regard to the authority we do not start out with the implication that the mayor, of whatever political persuasion, would immediately introduce a whole raft of political and personal appointments, allegedly on a part-time basis but in practice overwhelming the professional staff of the authority. That is why we have maintained the maximum of two plus 10 in this area, rather than translate it into two plus 10 full-time equivalents. I hope that the noble Lord understands that even though, as is fairly clear from his expression, he does not agree with it.
Amendments Nos. 246 to 248 are intended to ensure that the assembly, in making its appointments, does so only after it has taken full account of the appointments of the mayor. They are to clarify the interface.
Amendment No. 249 clarifies which provisions of Section 9 of the Local Government and Housing Act should apply to the mayor's appointments. Under Clause 56(1) it was not intended that the 1989 restrictions on remuneration should apply in that sense to the mayor's political advisers. The change in Amendment No. 249 makes Clause 56(8)(c) and (d) unnecessary, therefore Amendment No. 250 deletes them.
I do not disagree with the noble Lord's objectives, but the point of the clause is to limit the number of individuals and not the call on the budget, although that is also relevant.
We have had a slightly misleading debate, I misled myself and possibly the noble Lord. The pursuit of family-friendly policies and other aspects of staff
622
relations within the future GLA are a different matter. We are reassuring people that it will not be a political gravy train.
Lord Tope: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can he confirm that the mayor, in making the appointments of the 10 other members of staff specified under subsection (b), will be required to follow the full equal opportunities recruitment policy? I believe that to be the case. If so, can the Minister tell me how, in following that policy, the mayor will be able to appoint all these political apparatchiks, about which he knows far more than I do?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not sure about that. We are dealing with two plus 10. The two are clearly political advisers, appointed on a political basis without other procedures applying. The other 10 will be other personal appointments of the mayor who, like other employers in the public sector, is required to follow appropriate procedures in making those appointments. They may be specialists, personal staff or people to give him broader guidance, but they must follow that procedure. Nevertheless, they are the personal staff of the mayor and therefore it is important that there is a constraint on the numbers in relation to the relatively small numbers that we envisage will be employed by the GLA.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I am sure that, with the 10 other staff to whom I refer, the mayor will have to follow the equal opportunities procedures. In other words, there will have to be open advertisements, the usual specification and so on. Therefore, following that procedure properly, I cannot see how the appointment of so many apparatchiks would be possible, unless they were appropriately qualified apparatchiks, the most suitable people for the job.
I return to a number of points. First, on the question of our family-friendly working hours, I do not know whether we are making progress. The last time we debated this it was 11.30 at night, now it is not yet 10 o'clock. Perhaps we are making progress.
On a more serious point, let us leave aside the two political advisers because there may be a case with them. With the 10 other members of personal staff appointed through full, normal, proper equal opportunities procedures, even accepting that the Government wish to limit the total number, I do not understand why that limit should not be a total number of full-time equivalents. What matters in the Government's terms is that they are working the equivalent of 365 hours a week, if that is 10 times the 36½-hour week. Is not that important? Not whether there are 10, 15 or even 20 individuals working halftime. That is the point. It would enable the mayor to demonstrate that he too believed in family-friendly working practices, flexible arrangements and was able to employ people on job-shares and so on. He could set an example not only to the rest of the authority but the rest of London.

623
The Bill as drafted by the Government prevents a mayor who might wish to set that example from doing so. The Minister nods. The mayor can do that, but by so doing he or she deprives himself or herself of the amount of work capacity he could have. Of course the mayor can employ 10 half-time staff, but by doing it he deprives himself of half the working capacity that he is permitted under the Bill. I believe that the Government have got it wrong. If the Government wish to be prescriptive in their Bill, I hope that they will return to the point and examine it.
I shall not press the matter at this unfriendly hour of Thursday evening, but I am strongly inclined to do so. I hope that the Government will look at it again. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 246:
Page 31, line 11, leave out ("having taken into account") and insert ("after consultation with the Mayor and taking into account, in particular,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 247 to 250:
Page 31, line 12, leave out ("the powers conferred on the Mayor") and insert ("the manner in which, and the extent to which, the Mayor has exercised, or proposes to exercise, the powers conferred").
Page 31, line 15, leave out from ("for") to end of line 16 and insert ("the proper discharge of such functions of the Authority as are respectively exercisable by the Mayor, the Assembly, and the Mayor and Assembly acting jointly.").
Page 31, line 32, leave out from ("Section") to ("shall") in line 34 and insert ("9(1), (9) and (11) of that Act (assistants for political groups)").
Page 31, line 39, leave out paragraphs (c) and (d).
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 57 [Disqualification and political restriction]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 251:
Page 32, line 14, at end insert—
("(bb) the London Development Agency").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 251, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 252 to 257. I hope that these are straightforward amendments which bring the London Development Agency and TfL within the political restriction provisions in Clause 57. They also clarify that, where one of the staff appointed by the mayor is appointed to the board of TfL or LDA, he or she will receive no additional payment. I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I confess that at this hour of the night and at this stage of this monster Bill it is increasingly difficult to decide whether to be positive or negative about this measure. I have had to work quite hard on the Bill, as have many other Members. I can well imagine that Ministers and noble Lords opposite who fulfil that role have a more difficult problem. Even worse is the problem faced by parliamentary draftsmen who have to try to interpret the wishes of Ministers and make sense of them. I express the hope that Amendment No. 255 is not an absolute example of the thinking of either Ministers or
624
parliamentary draftsmen. As I read it, it indulges itself in a triple negative, which appears to me to be slightly excessive:
"who do not receive any remuneration …which they would not receive if they were not members of the body".
I find such wording in a Bill a trifle strange. I hope the Minister agrees that it may be more felicitously worded and that he will instruct that to be done. I find this too good an opportunity to miss. I do not for one moment charge the Government—still less parliamentary draftsmen—with negative thought, but I regret to say that in this instance they appear to have indulged in it.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not sure that there is an answer to that. However, if we went through the total Bill to look for felicitous draftsmanship I am afraid that sometimes double and triple negatives must appear in the drafting. I shall look at it. However, I hope the noble Lord accepts that if all of the clauses are read together they make reasonable sense in this case.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 252 to 257:
Page 32, line 15, leave out paragraphs (c) and (d).
Page 32, line 19, leave out ("a") and insert ("an unpaid").
Page 32, line 20, leave out ("without any additional remuneration").
Page 32, line 21, at end insert—
("() For the purposes of subsection (3) above, the unpaid members of any body are those members of the body who do not receive any remuneration (whether from the body, the Authority or any other source) which they would not receive if they were not members of the body.").
Page 32, line 24, at end insert—
("() In section 2 of that Act, so far as it has effect for the purposes of section 1 of that Act, the expression "the statutory chief officers" shall be taken to include a reference to the chief finance officer, within the meaning of section 113 below,—

(a) of Transport for London, and

(b) of the London Development Agency,

whether he is an officer, employee, member of staff or member of Transport for London or, as the case may be, the London Development Agency.").
Page 32, line 24, at end insert—
("() In the application of section 2 of that Act in relation to the London Development Agency by virtue of subsections (1) and (2)(bb) above, any reference to the person designated under section 4 of that Act as its head of paid service shall be taken as a reference to the chief executive of the London Development Agency appointed under paragraph 4(2) of Schedule 2 to the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 59 [Terms and conditions of employment]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 258:
Page 32, line 42, after ("conditions") insert ("(.including conditions as to remuneration)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, these amendments have been tabled in response to your Lordships' concerns that it was not completely clear that when the Bill refers to terms and conditions they

625
include remuneration. These amendments are intended to put the matter beyond doubt. I beg to move Amendment No. 258.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendments Nos. 259 and 260:
Page 33, line 13, at end insert—
("() The requirement of subsection (5)(b) above is that the person shall—

(a) so far as reasonably practicable, answer any such question orally at the meeting at which it is put; or

(b) if for any reason it is not reasonably practicable to do that, provide a written answer before the end of the third working day following the day on which the question was first asked at the meeting.").

Page 33, line 18, at end insert—
("() In this section "working day" has the same meaning as in section 37 above.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 61 [Chief Administrative Officer (head of paid service)]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 261:
Page 33, line 29, at end insert—
("() The person who, by virtue of subsection (1) above, is designated under section 4(1)(a) of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 as the head of the Authority's paid service must be a member of staff appointed under section 56(2) above.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendments Nos. 262 to 264:
Page 33, line 30, leave out subsection (2).
Page 33, line 33, leave out subsection (3).
Page 33, line 35, at end insert—
("(4) In the application of section 4 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 in relation to the Authority by virtue of subsection (1) above, the following provisions shall have effect.
(5) The duty imposed by subsection (1)(a) (appointment of head of paid service) shall be discharged by the Assembly after consultation with the Mayor.
(6) The duty imposed by subsection (1)(b) (provision of staff, accommodation etc for the head of paid service)—

(a) so far as relating to the provision of staff, shall be discharged by the Assembly; and

(b) so far as relating to the provision of accommodation or other resources, shall be discharged by the Mayor.

(7) Any report prepared under subsection (2) (report by head of paid service) shall be a report to the Mayor and the Assembly.
(8) The references to functions in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (3) (matters concerning which proposals may be made in a report under subsection (2)) shall be taken as references to the functions of the Authority, whether exercisable by the Mayor, the Assembly, or the Mayor and Assembly acting jointly.
(9) It shall be the duty of the Mayor personally to consider any report to the Mayor and Assembly under subsection (2).
626
(10) The meeting required by subsection (5) to be held to consider any such report shall be a meeting of the Assembly which must not be held until—

(a) the Mayor has submitted to the Chair of the Assembly a written statement of his views on the report; or

(b) the period of one month has elapsed since copies of the report were first sent to members of the Assembly without the Mayor having submitted any such statement;

and the reference in that subsection to section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972 (delegation) shall be taken as a reference to section 46 above.
(11) In considering any such report at any such meeting, the Assembly shall take account of any views on the report which have been expressed by the Mayor in a statement submitted under subsection (10)(a) above.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 62 [Monitoring officer]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 265:
Page 33, line 42, at end insert—
("() The person who, by virtue of subsection (1) above, is designated under section 5(1)(a) of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 as the Authority's monitoring officer must be a member of staff appointed under section 56(2) above.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 266:
Page 34, line 1, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) In the application of section 5 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 in relation to the Authority by virtue of subsection (1) above, the following provisions shall have effect.
(3) The duty imposed by subsection (1)(a) (appointment of monitoring officer) shall be discharged by the Assembly after consultation with the Mayor.
(4) The duty imposed by subsection (1)(b) (provision of staff, accommodation etc for the monitoring officer)—

(a) so far as relating to the provision of staff, shall be discharged by the Assembly; and

(b) so far as relating to the provision of accommodation or other resources, shall be discharged by the Mayor.

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

(a) a contravention by that or any other GLA body or person of any enactment or rule of law or of any code of practice made or approved by or under any enactment, or

(b) any such maladministration or injustice as is mentioned in Part III of the Local Government Act 1974 (Local Commissioners),

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

(a) the Greater London Authority;

(b) Transport for London, when exercising any function of the Greater London Authority by virtue of section 31 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999;

(c) the London Development Agency, when exercising any function of the Greater London Authority by virtue of section 31 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999;

(d) the Mayor of London;

(e) the London Assembly;

(f) any committee or sub-committee of the London Assembly;

627

(g) any committee or sub-committee of Transport for London or the London Development Agency, when exercising any function of the Greater London Authority in consequence of an authorisation under section 31 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999;

(h) any joint committee to which the Mayor of London has power to appoint members (whether or not the power is the subject of an authorisation under section 31(1) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999);

(j) the Deputy Mayor of London;

(k) any member of the London Assembly;

(l) any member of staff of the Greater London Authority;

(m) any member, or member of staff, of Transport for London or the London Development Agency, when exercising, or acting in the exercise of, any function of the Greater London Authority in consequence of an authorisation under section 31 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999;

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

(a) so far as relating to a proposal, decision or omission of a GLA body or person in the case of a function of the Authority exercisable by the Mayor (or, by virtue of an authorisation under section 31(1) above, by a GLA body or person), shall be discharged by the Mayor;

(b) so far as relating to a proposal, decision or omission of a GLA body or person in the case of a function of the Authority exercisable by the Assembly (or, by virtue of arrangements under section 46 above, by a GLA body or person), shall be discharged by the Assembly; and

(c) so far as relating to a proposal, decision or omission of a GLA body or person in the case of a function of the Authority exercisable by the Mayor and the Assembly acting jointly, shall be discharged separately—

(i) by the Mayor, as if the case fell within paragraph (a) above, and

(ii) by the Assembly, as if the case fell within paragraph (b) above.

(7) Accordingly—

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

(b) in the application of that paragraph by virtue of subsection (6)(b) or (c)(ii) above, the meeting required to be held shall be a meeting of the Assembly.

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

(a) by the Assembly to the Mayor; or

(b) by the Mayor to the Chair of the Assembly.

628
(10) Standing orders of the Authority shall make pro vision for or in connection with—

(a) the period within which any statement by virtue of subsection (9) above must be submitted;

(b) the consideration of any such statement by the Mayor or, as the case may be, the Assembly;

(c) the period within which any meeting of the Assembly required by subsection (5) by virtue of subsection (6)(b) or (c)(ii) above must, or must not, be held.

(11) Neither section 31 above nor section 46 above shall apply in relation to the duty imposed on the Mayor or the Assembly by virtue of subsection (6) above to consider a report.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 267:
After Clause 65, insert the following new clause—

POWER OF AUTHORITY TO PROMOTE OR OPPOSE BILLS IN PARLIAMENT
(" .—(1) The Authority may—

(a) promote a local Bill in Parliament for any purpose which is for the public benefit of the inhabitants of, or of any part of, Greater London; or

(b) oppose any local Bill in Parliament which affects any such inhabitants.

(2) Section 70 of the Local Government Act 1972 (prohibition on promoting Bills for changing local government areas etc) shall have effect in relation to the Authority as it has effect in relation to a local authority.
(3) The functions conferred on the Authority by subsection (1) above shall be functions of the Authority which are exercisable by the Mayor acting on behalf of the Authority.
(4) The functions conferred on the Authority by subsection (1)(a) above are exercisable subject to, and in accordance with, the provisions of Schedule (Promotion of Bills in Parliament by the Authority) to this Act.
(5) Before exercising the functions conferred on the Authority by subsection (1)(b) above, the Mayor shall consult the Assembly.
(6) No payment shall be made by the Authority (whether acting by the Mayor, the Assembly or the Mayor and Assembly acting jointly) to the Mayor or an Assembly member for acting as counsel or agent in promoting or opposing a Bill under this section.
(7) A London borough council or the Common Council may contribute towards the expenses of the Authority in promoting a local Bill in Parliament.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 267, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 268, 269, 287, 395, 396, 448, 534 and 535.
Amendments Nos. 267, 287, 395, 448, 534 and 535 provide the Greater London Authority, Transport for London and the London Development Agency with the power to promote local Bills. This power is held by local authorities under the 1972 Local Government Act, by London Transport, and, before its abolition, by the Greater London Council. It is appropriate that the new strategic government we are creating for London should have it too. Local Bill procedure is based upon consensus. It is not, generally, appropriate that it should be used for matters that are the subject of controversy or disagreement. The Government have therefore sought to provide in these amendments for full prior consultation on any draft Bill coming forward from the authority, TfL or the LDA. And where a proposed Bill affects the statutory functions of another London local authority, the amendments provide that a consent procedure should be followed before the local Bill is deposited.
Where a proposed local Bill affects the exercise by an individual local authority of its statutory functions, the amendments provide that the consent of that local authority should be obtained. Where the proposed local Bill affects the exercise by two or more local authorities of their statutory functions the amendments require that at least 90 per cent of them— 30 out of 33—must indicate their consent.
Under current standing orders of this House relating to private business, if a Bill promoted by a county council alters the functions of a district council, the consent of that district council must be obtained. Under the 1985 Local Government Act, for a provision in a Bill promoted by one London local authority to apply to another one, that authority must agree by resolution.
In drawing up these amendments we have sought to consult those with a particular interest in what we propose. I am particularly grateful to the Association of London Government for its assistance in developing these proposals, and to the authorities in both Houses for their considerable help.
We have concluded that the GLA should be made subject to an onerous consent requirement before depositing legislation. However, it should not be frustrated in the promotion of legislation applicable to the whole of London, or of strategic importance to the whole of London, because one or two boroughs—for whatever reason—choose to withhold their consent. Where a provision affects two or more London local authorities, the GLA should be able to proceed to deposit the Bill if it can persuade the overwhelming majority of others—90 per cent of all 33 local authorities—to consent to what is proposed.
It is important to remember that this is all about the hurdles to be placed in front of the GLA prior to deposit, with the aim of ensuring general consent to what is proposed. Any Bill would still have to be considered by Parliament. Nothing in the amendments prevents local authorities disagreeing with Bill provisions petitioning against a GLA local Bill if they so choose.
The amendments in the group before us deal with two further associated matters; the GLA's relationship with London local authority Bills under the Local Government Act 1985 and TfL's power to promote and oppose orders under the Transport and Works Act. Those involved in the co-ordination of London local authority Bills will have practical experience of the difficulties associated with that procedure.
It is possible that in the future London local authorities may choose to promote legislation for the benefit of London through the GLA rather than under the Local Government Act 1985. However, we are content that the ability for London local authorities to promote legislation under the 1985 Act should be maintained. Amendment No. 168 provides that if they choose so to promote legislation, the GLA may join with them in doing so. Amendment No. 269 provides that if a Bill promoted by a London local authority affects the exercise of the GLA's statutory functions, or those of its functional bodies, the consent of the GLA must be obtained.
Amendment No. 396 gives TfL the power, subject to the consent of the mayor, to promote and oppose applications for orders under the Transport and Works Act 1992. This will enable TfL to take forward proposals for new transport infrastructure, in the same was as London Transport can now. It delivers our commitment, given in the White Paper and earlier in the passage of the Bill, that the mayor will be able to promote improvements to the rail network.
These amendments are straightforward in content. They give the GLA, TfL and the LDA important powers necessary for the proper exercise of their responsibilities. In urging the House to agree with them, I apologise for their length. For future reference, it is important that the detail is placed on record. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, we accept everything in these amendments and thank the Minister for her clear and detailed explanation. However, we should like to put on record the fact that we find it extraordinary that such important new clauses are added at this stage. They are so necessary, simple and straightforward that it is extraordinary that a Bill was drafted and such important matters were omitted. At any rate, we are pleased to see them in the Bill now.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, perhaps I may ask a question in respect of Amendment No. 395. The new clause provides that subsection (1)(a) will apply if the authority gives its written consent, confirms that and later gives notice. Can the Minister confirm that the power of the authority can be exercised by the mayor, by the mayor and assembly or by the assembly? That seems to be the result of an amendment we agreed to on Tuesday. I want to be clear about who is involved in the authority giving consent under that provision.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, it is only the mayor who has the power, but consultation

631
with the assembly is built into the mechanism. Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, that the consensus that we achieved took the time.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendments Nos. 268 and 269:
After Clause 65, insert the following new clause—

POWER TO REQUEST PROVISIONS IN BILLS PROMOTED BY LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES
(" .—(1) A local Bill promoted in Parliament, by a London local authority may include provisions requested by the Authority.
(2) Subsection (1) above applies only if the Authority confirms the request in writing as soon as practicable after the expiration of 14 days after the Bill has been deposited in Parliament.
(3) If the Authority does not confirm the request as required by subsection (2) above, it shall give notice of that fact to the London local authority promoting the Bill.
(4) Where notice under subsection (3) above is given to a London local authority, that authority shall take all necessary steps for the omission from the Bill of the provisions in question or, if those provisions were requested also by other London local authorities under section 87 of the Local Government Act 1985, of those provisions so far as relating to the Authority.
(5) The functions conferred or imposed on the Authority by subsections (1) to (3) above shall be functions of the Authority which are exercisable by the Mayor acting on behalf of the Authority.
(6) Before exercising the functions conferred on the Authority by subsection (1) or (2) above, the Mayor shall consult the Assembly.
(7) If, in accordance with this section, the Authority requests the inclusion of provisions in a Bill promoted by a London local authority, the Authority may contribute towards the expenses of the London local authority in connection with the Bill.
(8) In consequence of the other provisions of this section, in section 87(3) of the Local Government Act 1985 (consequences of non-confirmation of requests by London local authorities for inclusion of provisions in Bills promoted by others) after "other councils" there shall be inserted ", or by the Greater London Authority under section (Power to request provisions in Bills promoted by London local authorities) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999,".
(9) In this section "London local authority" means—

(a) a London borough council; or

(b) the Common Council.").

After Clause 65, insert the following new clause—

AUTHORITY'S CONSENT TO INCLUSION OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS IN LOCAL BILLS
(".—(1) A local Bill promoted in Parliament by a London local authority may include provisions which affect the exercise of functions by the Authority or any of the functional bodies.
(2) Subsection (1) above applies only if the Authority—

(a) gives its written consent; and

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

(3) If the Authority does not confirm the consent as required by subsection (2)(b) above, the Authority shall give notice of that fact to the London local authority promoting the Bill.
(4) Where notice under subsection (3) above is given to a London local authority, that authority shall take all necessary steps for the omission from the Bill of the provisions in question or, if those provisions were requested by other London local authorities under section 87 of the Local Government Act 1985, of those provisions so far as relating to the Authority or the functional body concerned.
(5) The functions conferred or imposed on the Authority by subsections (2) and (3) above shall be functions of the Authority which are exercisable by the Mayor acting on behalf of the Authority.
(6) Before exercising the functions conferred on the Authority by subsection (2)(a) or (b) above, the Mayor shall consult the Assembly.
(7) Nothing in this section applies in relation to provisions requested under section (Power to request provisions in Bills promoted by London local authorities) above.
(8) In this section "London local authority" means—

(a) a London borough council; or

(b) the Common Council.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 67 [Amounts for different categories of dwellings]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 270:
Page 36, line 31, leave out ("76") and insert ("74").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 271 to 273, 275 to 279 and 305 to 307. As I understand matters, the expenses for magistrates' courts and the probation service within London are currently covered as "special expenses" of the office of Receiver for the Metropolitan Police. Such expenses are financed under a special arrangement laid clown by Clause 45 of the Local Government Finance A ct 1992.
The Greater London Authority Bill will abolish the office of Receiver with the commencement of the Greater London magistrates courts agency, but that does not happen until the year 2001. In the meantime, the office of Receiver will remain and the special expenses will have to be paid for. When this Bill was drafted, the Government expected there to be a range of transitional financial arrangements required. In the light of this, Clauses 75 and 76 were inserted setting out a temporary mechanism for payments of Metropolitan Police matters remaining unresolved after the setting up of the GLA. So that provisions would take precedent, Clauses 75 and 76 caused the Local Government Finance Act 1992 to cease to have effect in such cases.
As I understand it, it is now clear from the work done by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions that these clauses will only apply to financing of the special expenses of the office of Receiver. Given the fact that this situation will exist only for one year, changing the current system would cause exceptional administrative difficulties. The calculations set out in Clauses 75 and 76 would also, paradoxically, result in a huge additional financial burden on inner London authorities when applied only to the special expenses of the office of Receiver. For Westminster Council, I understand that it would mean a loss of revenue support grant in excess of £1,100,000.
Clauses 75 and 76 now constitute an administrative anomaly which, if left in the Bill, will result in an iniquitously unfair approach to the financing of the office of Receiver for an additional period of 12 months. However, were those clauses to be deleted, the current perfectly acceptable arrangements under

633
Section 45 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 would remain in effect in place—the status quo ante, which, as I understand it, is satisfactory to everybody.
This is a large group of amendments dealing with this matter, but it is important. I can well understand that it is the sort of situation that one would only discover after one begins to work through in intimate detail the consequences of a Bill of such detail and complexity as this one. I ask the Government to consider most seriously either accepting our amendments or, probably more realistically, taking them away and studying them and the consequences of what is to happen under the Bill, with a view to producing an acceptable solution on Third Reading. It is our view that the effect of the Bill as presently drafted would produce an anomalous situation with very unfortunate financial consequences for certain parts of London. We do not think that that is right, still less do we think that that was the Government's intention. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Lord raises a number of complex issues relating to the funding of the probation service and magistrates' courts in a transitional period. The expenditure on those areas will be a general expense, not a special expense. The concerns which the noble Lord expresses in terms of the impact on borough funding and general funding will be a transitional problem. It is not a long-term problem, whereas these amendments would have a serious long-term implication. The funding by the receiver for the interim transitional period will be dealt with through transitional arrangements which we may come to at the back of the Bill and some of which will need to be dealt with administratively. The effect of the amendments, if adopted as tabled, would be that the GLA would have to raise several hundred thousand pounds more from its council tax payers than it actually needs.
That is because when calculating its precept under Clause 74, the GLA would have to ignore the income it receives through the police grant. That would be fairly nonsensical and in making the additional calculations, the GLA would again have to ignore the grant income from central government in respect of police services. Consequently, the precept would be so large that council tax payers would be required to be paid that part of the cost of police services which will actually be met by police grant from central government.
Therefore, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendments. Since they deal with the transitional arrangements, of which the implications have been raised with at least one London borough, it may be sensible for us to communicate in writing with the noble Lord before Third Reading about how we shall deal with the transitional arrangements. I assure the
634
noble Lord that, if the amendments were adopted as such, the anomaly would be far greater than the one to which he alludes.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am always prepared to accept that when an amateur gets going in this sort of situation, he is quite likely, if allowed an entirely free rein without check, to produce something not wholly reasonable. However, the purpose of tabling these amendments was to have this issue, which has unfortunate consequences, discussed. In that, I have had some success.
The Minister has very nearly satisfied me. He has not quite given me an assurance that administrative arrangements will be made to deal with the interim period which will ensure that those sort of large financial swings will not occur, although he has said that administrative arrangements will be made to take care of the interim period. I am grateful for his offer of further discussions to try to sort out that issue. In the meantime I am quite happy to withdraw this group of amendments.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 271 to 273 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 274 not moved.]
Clause 69 [Issue of precepts]:
[Amendments Nos. 275 to 279 not moved.]
Clause 71 [Calculation of component and consolidated budget requirements]:
[Amendment No. 280 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 281:
Page 38, line 37, leave out ("requirement") and insert ("bid").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 282, 283, 288, 289, 290 and 291.
These amendments concern the budget total for the authority. All but one of them is an amendment to phraseology to be consistent with our approach, which is to leave out references to the functional bodies' requirements and to talk about their bids as being hid requests. Amendment No. 291 is the substantive amendment to Schedule 5, to provide that in preparing the draft consolidated budget the mayor shall have regard to the component budget requirement or bid of each of the constituent bodies but shall not be bound to accede to it.
In Committee we made the point that we feel that the new London authority should be regarded as one body, headed by the mayor and making coherent policy, rather than a set of component bodies which make their requirements known and give the mayor their own totals, which the mayor would tot up and refer to as the budget. I appreciate that I deal with this simplistically. We remain concerned that the procedure does not allow political priority setting. After all, we all know that politics involves a great deal of setting of priorities. That is rarely seen so starkly as when budgets are set.
The Minister wrote to me following Committee stage, explaining the procedures and saying that, once the budgets had been set, each of the functional bodies would operate independently and be responsible for managing its own financial affairs, administration, and so on. I understand that. However, I do not understand why the Bill should allow not just juggling, so that each of the functional bodies is allocated what it claims, but for a view to be taken by the mayor proposing the budget in its various stages that one of the functional bodies needs to be given priority as against another. I should be grateful if the Minister would explain to me how the mayor can determine the priorities and not be the creature of the four bodies, all of whose claims, I have no doubt, will be extremely persuasive. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not quite clear what the noble Baroness seeks to do. Certainly the words which she uses give entirely the wrong impression of how the budget process would work. To refer to "complicity bids" by the various functional authorities seems to misunderstand the central role of the mayor in setting the budget, which is to provide a consolidated budget. Clearly, the mayor has to trade off priorities both within the functional authorities' budget, which mostly they will have done themselves and, in certain circumstances, between them in order to produce an acceptable consolidated budget. However, to refer to it as a bidding process does not seem to me to bring the mayor any closer—indeed, it would take him or her further away—from the requirement to have a consolidated strategic approach to budget setting, taking into account, but not accepting and simply totting up—as the noble Baroness suggested—the bids which are already there from the functional bodies.
We require the functional bodies to act together responsibly and also, at the end of the day, for the mayor to be able to make an assessment between priorities and producing a consolidated budget. The totality should not be seen as a bidding competitive process but as one which helps to formulate those priorities and therefore that budget. I hope that the noble Baroness will recognise that the terminology which she suggests is moving in the opposite direction and is therefore not one that we could. accept.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, yes. I accept that answer to the first set of amendments. However, I believe that if the noble Lord considers the term "bid" as against "requirement", he may see that I make the very point that he makes. As I said, the most important amendment in this group is the one to the schedule. The paragraph before the one where we propose an insertion—that is, paragraph 3(i) of Schedule 5 on page 222—reads:
"After the Mayor has prepared the draft component budgets … he shall prepare a draft of his proposed consolidated budget".
That is because the consolidated budget comprises the totality of the draft component budgets. I am relieved that the Minister described the process in precisely the way we would like to see it carried out. However, I am
636
not convinced that the wording in the Bill provides for that. I shall reconsider the matter, in the context of the Minister having had a go at my drafting. However, that is all right. His assurances have been helpful and he has put the matter in terms he may have used at the previous stage, but which at the time I did not entirely take in. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 282 and 283 not moved.]
Clause 72 [Provisions supplemental to section 71]:
[Amendment No. 284 not moved.]
Clause 73 [Procedure for determining the budget requirements]:
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 285:
Page 39, line 44, leave out ("procedural").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 285, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 299, which is the nub of the matter. I make no apology for returning to the issue of amendments to the mayor's budget. Schedule 5 to the Bill provides that such amendments shall not be made unless they have the agreement of a two-thirds majority of the assembly. We are proposing here that, in accordance with the normal democratic process, an amendment should be agreed if it has a simple majority.
One of the very few powers of the assembly is that it may scrutinise and approve the budget of the mayor. It is hoped that that will be done by discussion and agreement. However, if the assembly is to do its job properly, it must have, to use the phrase loosely, a reserve power enabling it to amend that budget if it so chooses. To achieve a two-thirds majority for an amendment—not for approval of the budget as a whole, but only an amendment to the budget —will be extremely difficult, given the likely composition of the assembly. It seems to me that in drafting the Bill in this way, the Government have made it clear that, while they are happy for the assembly to look at and comment upon the mayor's budget, they would be unhappy if the assembly had any real power to affect that budget.
To accord with the democratic process, if a simple majority supports an amendment, that amendment should be made. For the Government to give so much power in relation to the budget, and in effect no power, or power only in the most extreme circumstances to the assembly—namely, when a two-thirds majority can be commanded—is to take too far even the Government's desire for a strong mayor and a weak assembly. The point of this group of amendments is to return to the democratic principle and to give the assembly at least some power in terms of the duties it has to scrutinise and to approve the mayor's budget. The assembly should be able to agree amendments by a simple majority. That is the case in any other democratic institution in this country. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I understand completely the noble Lord's point of view on this matter. However, the noble Lord must recognise that here we are dealing with a new and unique structure. It is clear

637
that the executive power rests with the mayor and a power of scrutiny rests with the authority. For the executive power to be effective the mayor needs to be able to allocate resources to carry out the priorities that he or she has set in the relevant strategies. That means that the mayor must set the budget and that in general that budget should be delivered.
It is therefore quite right, as the noble Lord says, that we are dealing with the slightly extreme circumstances in which the assembly would have the right to amend the budget. The circumstances are not that extreme. Providing for a two-thirds majority is fairly well known in various circumstances in terms of constitutional change. However, the provisions would mean that, if a simple 51 per cent of the assembly took a different view, perhaps being of a different party from the mayor, or if that simple majority of the assembly temporarily took a different view from the mayor, they would not be able to amend his budget. If there were a reasonable degree of consensus within the assembly to achieve that two-thirds opposition, an amendment would be carried.
In a sense, we are moving slightly towards the noble Lord in giving greater power to the assembly than perhaps obtains in other circumstances, because setting the budget is clearly the mayor's key executive power. All the other strategies of the assembly will be as paper if there are not the resources to carry them out. Therefore, being able to set his or her own budget is a powerful part of the mayor's executive function. Nevertheless, we recognise that there should be some restriction in extreme circumstances and we have therefore provided for the two-thirds majority in this case.
I think that it is a reasonable balance. I know that the noble Lord has a slightly different view and, as we have seen at various points in this debate, he and his party consider that the assembly should have powers wider than those of the mayor. We take a different view, as does the structure. To be consistent but still to provide a safety net, we think that it is reasonable to require a two-thirds majority before an amendment to the budget can be made. We believe that that fits in with the other provisions in respect of the structure of the authority. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will not pursue his amendment tonight.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, my Amendment No. 300 is part of this group. It too deals with the budgetary purpose and addresses particularly the points raised by the Minister in his last remarks.
Under the schedule, the budgetary process provides that the mayor will produce a draft budget which will then be considered by the assembly. At that stage, the assembly has the right, by a simple majority, to approve the budget with or without amendment. Therefore, the assembly has the right to amend the budget by a simple majority at the first stage. Continuing through the schedule, one sees that the mayor then takes away the budget, produces a final
638
draft and takes it back to the assembly. This is where we come to the question of a two-thirds majority in the assembly if the budget is to be amended further.
My problem with this, as a practical man—I think that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, will have had similar experiences, as will anyone who has been deeply involved in the preparation of a local authority budget—is that it is not a process with a series of separate, identifiable steps. It is a long and continuous negotiation. Sometimes it is a ghastly haggle and an agreement is achieved usually only with extreme difficulty. Everybody has to make adjustments.
I can imagine that before the mayor produces his first draft budget he will have had considerable discussions with interested parties in the assembly. He is bound to have discussions with all those whose functions relate to the Greater London Authority. At that point he goes to the assembly with his draft budget. As I say, it can approve it with or without amendment, by a simple majority. Let us suppose that the assembly has amended the budget, which is highly likely. The mayor reconsiders the budget and what has been said. It may be that in the process of that negotiation—I shall not diminish it by describing it as a "haggle"—he does not agree with the assembly. He then sends the final draft budget back to the assembly.
My amendment is to put into the Bill that, where at the first stage of its consideration the assembly has produced an amendment, it has the right to insist on it at the second stage by a simple majority. That would not permit the assembly to introduce new considerations.
I call in aid the Government's own document. I admit that it is a slightly questionable one. It is entitled The Shape of Things to Come? The reason why I say it is slightly questionable is that the Government are so confident about it that a question mark is put at the end. Perhaps it is not the shape of things to come. But in Box 3 of that document one finds the assembly's functions. They are to approve or amend the budget. One can have a debate about whether amending it at the first draft stage is amending the budget or not. I suggest that amending it at that stage is not amending the budget.
If the assembly choose to amend it at the second draft stage that is amending the budget. I disagree with the Government over their approach to this matter. The assembly should have some authority here. As I have said, my amendment is to give it some authority to insist on an amendment on which it has had negotiations with the mayor. I do not believe that that is particularly unreasonable given that what we are discussing is likely to be continuous negotiation, with disagreements ultimately refined to fairly small items which are too often almost matters of taste. This amendment has considerable merits from a practical point of view. I commend it to the House.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not entirely sure whether I am allowed to speak again at Report stage.

639
However, since the noble Lord has spoken to his amendment after I have spoken, perhaps I may point out that he is clearly right that in practice there will be a continuous process of discussion, consultation and negotiation.
The provision of the two-thirds majority is because that at the end of the day we believe that the mayor must have authority to see his budget through, except in the most exceptional circumstances. Therefore, whatever has happened previously and where a two-thirds majority might emerge, clearly it would not be a relatively minor part of the budget. There would be a major disagreement. In those circumstances we have to have a mechanism for resolving it. In normal circumstances the resolution would be that the mayor prevails, but there would be a safety-net in the quite unusual circumstances where the assembly could overturn a decision by a two-thirds majority. We are looking at that provision.
I agree entirely with the noble Lord that in practice it is a much more interesting process before one reaches that stage. There will be a. great deal of consultation not only with the assembly but with many other people. There has to be a final resolution. We consider that we have the right balance for the final solution.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I return to my group of amendments. The Minister said that it is quite usual in this country for there to be a requirement of a two-thirds majority for constitutional amendments, or those that can be termed as such. That is true. However, we are not talking about constitutions, but budgets, and they are very different matters. The Minister is right; there is a substantial difference here.
At the beginning of Report stage we stated that we would not repeat all our arguments for having a stronger assembly and a weaker mayor. We have accepted that that is a different view and the Government's view prevails. However, we come to the nub of the matter in terms of budgets. The Government are not just proposing a strong mayor and a weak assembly. It seems that by requiring a two-thirds majority for amendments to the budget, they are proposing a mayor with absolute power and an assembly with absolutely no power. That is except in the most exceptional circumstances when the mayor has "gone off his head", which I believe was the phrase used at an earlier stage—
Baroness Hamwee: Gone off the rails.
Lord Tope: My Lords, that is an eventuality which might bring us into a greater crisis than just the budget. I shall not press the amendment at present. However, it has brought into stark relief the differences between us and the Government and just what they propose for the Greater London Authority. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 286 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 287:
Before Schedule 5, insert the following new schedule—

SCHEDULE PROMOTION OF BILLS IN PARLIAMENT BY THE AUTHORITY
Preliminary requirements
1. No Bill may be deposited in Parliament by virtue of section (Power of Authority to promote or oppose Bills in Parliament)(1)(a) of this Act until the requirements of paragraphs 2 and 4 below have been complied with.
Consultation on draft Bill
2.—(1) The Mayor shall—

(a) prepare a draft of the proposed Bill ("the draft Bill");

(b) send copies of the draft Bill to the bodies specified in sub-paragraph (2) below; and

(c) consult those bodies about the draft Bill.

(2) Those bodies are—

(a) the Assembly;

(b) every London borough council; and

(c) the Common Council.

(3) Where the Mayor sends copies of the draft Bill to those bodies pursuant to sub-paragraph (1)(b) above, he shall also give those bodies notice of the time within which, and the place at which, they may make representations about the draft Bill.
Publicity for, and exposure of the draft Bill
3.—(1) Throughout the consultation period, the Mayor shall take such steps as in his opinion will give adequate publicity to the draft Bill.
(2) A copy of the draft Bill shall be kept available by the Mayor for inspection by any person on request free of charge—

(a) at the principal offices of the Authority, and

(b) at such other places as the Mayor considers appropriate, at reasonable hours throughout the consultation period.

(3) A copy of the draft Bill, or of any part of the draft Bill, shall be supplied to any person on request during the consultation period for such reasonable fee as the Mayor may determine.
(4) In this paragraph "the consultation period" means the period which—

(a) begins with the first (lay after the requirements of paragraph 2(1)(b) above have been complied with; and

(b) ends with the time notified pursuant to paragraph 2(3) above.

Consultation on revised draft Bill
4.—(1) If, after considering any representations made about the draft Bill pursuant to paragraph 2 above, the Mayor decides to continue with the proposal for a Bill to be promoted. he shall prepare a revised draft of the proposed Bill ("the revised draft Bill").
(2) The revised draft Bill must be in the form of the draft Bill, either as originally prepared or as modified to take account of—

(a) representations made pursuant to paragraph 2 above;

(b) other representations made within the consultation period; or

(c) other material considerations.

(3) After the expiration of at least 30 days from the beginning of the consultation period, the Mayor shall'—

(a) send a copy of the revised draft Bill to the Assembly; and

(b) consult the Assembly about it.

(4) Where the Mayor sends a copy of the revised draft Bill to the Assembly pursuant to sub-paragraph (3)(a) above, he shall also give the Assembly notice of the period within which it may make representations to him about the revised draft Bill.
(5) The period specified under sub-paragraph (4) above must be such as will afford the Assembly a reasonable opportunity to consider the revised draft Bill and make representations about it to the Mayor.
(6) In this paragraph "the consultation period" has the same meaning as in paragraph 3 above.
Deposition of the Bill in Parliament
5. If, after the requirements of paragraph 4 above have been complied with, a Bill is deposited in Parliament by virtue of section (Power of Authority to promote or oppose Bills in Parliament)(1)(a) of this Act, that Bill must be in the form of the revised draft Bill, either as originally prepared or as modified to take account of—

(a) representations made by the Assembly pursuant to paragraph 4 above; or

(b) other material considerations.

Bills affecting powers of London local authorities
6. If a Bill proposed to be deposited in Parliament by virtue of section (Power of Authority to promote or oppose Bills in Parliament)(1)(a) of this Act contains provisions affecting the exercise of statutory functions by a London local authority, the Bill shall not be deposited in Parliament unless—

(a) in a case where the statutory functions of one London local authority are affected, that authority has given its written consent to the Bill in the form in which it is to be so deposited; or

(b) in a case where the statutory functions of two or more London local authorities are affected, at least 90 per cent. of all London local authorities have given their written consent to the Bill in that form.

(2) In this paragraph "London local authority" means—

(a) a London borough council; or

(b) the Common Council.

Publicity for the deposited Bill
7.—(1) This paragraph applies where a Bill ("the deposited Bill") is deposited in Parliament by virtue of section (Power of Authority to promote or oppose Bills in Parliament)(1)(a) of this Act.
(2) During the period of 14 days following the day on which the deposited Bill is deposited in Parliament, the Mayor shall take such steps as in his opinion will give adequate publicity to the Bill.
(3) A copy of the deposited Bill shall be kept available by the Mayor for inspection by any person on request free of charge—

(a) at the principal offices of the Authority, and

(b) at such other places as the Mayor considers appropriate,

at reasonable hours throughout the period while the Bill is in Parliament.
(4) A copy of the deposited Bill, or of any part of the deposited Bill, shall be supplied to any person on request during that period for such reasonable fee as the Mayor may determine.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Procedure for determining the Authority's consolidated budget requirement.]
[Amendments Nos. 288 to 291 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 292:
Page 222, line 8, leave out ("a majority of the Assembly members voting") and insert ("the Assembly").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 293:
Page 222, line 18, leave out ("1st February") and insert ("15th December").
The noble Lord said: in moving Amendment No. 293 I shall refer also to the other amendments in this group. I shall not be moving Amendments Nos. 296 and 297. Clearly, there has been an error in the drafting or tabling of those amendments. One of them, at least, should refer to a different place in the schedule. I apologise for that error, wherever it arose.
Amendment No. 293 enables us to debate what we were trying to get at with this group of amendments had we managed to get the dates right. The budget process is much more than mechanical. It is a full discussion and debate about priorities and political priorities. As the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, stated, it will be a process of continuous dialogue, discussion and negotiation.
The purpose of the amendments is to move that process forward as far as possible. I say that bearing in mind the current practice—which makes life extremely difficult—of the Government announcing the revenue settlement at the beginning of December. We propose that the mayor should present his or her draft budget by 15th December and that there should be a longer period for consultation and discussion, which is achievable.
I recognise that the GLA budget will be much larger than that of any other London borough. However, it is a process which we have followed in my authority for a number of years. We now have a meaningful debate with interested organisations and, indeed, individuals, on budget priorities and proposals, whether for growth or savings and cuts.
I suggest that the mayor should be required to adopt a similar process; to be able to have the open and formal debate, discussion and consultation rather earlier and over a longer period. That is the intention of the amendments, starting with the presentation of the draft budget in the middle of December. I wish it could be earlier than that date and that the period did not include Christmas and the New Year. Unfortunately, the Government's timetable on the RSG settlement makes that impossible.
If that process is to be real and meaningful, and there is to be a useful dialogue in terms of priorities as reflected in the budget, we shall need the longer timetable that we are suggesting. I recognise that the Government cannot accept these amendments tonight, but I hope that they will accept the intention and perhaps consider further how to make this proposal more meaningful. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, in speaking to this group of amendments I shall make specific reference to Government Amendment No. 303. That amendment would remove the Secretary of State's power to change the last day of February date before which the mayor must present his or her final draft budget, and the assembly must approve it.
In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, tabled amendments seeking to change the statutory dates in the budget-setting process from February to November. We

643
cannot agree that the deadlines for either the draft or the actual budget should be brought forward, and we cannot accept these amendments. The local government finance settlement is usually announced in late November or early December. The mayor is required to consult the assembly before finalising his draft budget, and we expect much of the work in drafting the budget to be done long in advance of the deadlines set out in Schedule 5.
However, bringing forward the date by when the mayor would have to present his draft consolidated budget to December would leave almost no time for the mayor to consider provisional grant figures, or to consult the assembly before preparing his or her draft budget.
Bringing forward the deadline by when the mayor must present his final draft budget would require the mayor to present a final draft budget before the grant allocation is finalised, and would allow the assembly no more time to consider the draft budget than the Bill currently allows.
Requiring the assembly to approve the draft budget before 15th January is unrealistic. I recall that during our debate on this issue in Committee, noble Lords expressed their concern that the boroughs should know the amount of the GLA precept at an early enough time to be able to influence their own budget decisions, should they decide to do so.
We all recognise, of course, that the GLA and the boroughs will need to be in regular dialogue on their respective priorities. The GLA, like all major precepting authorities, will surely seek to set its budget as early as possible, but a deadline of 15th January is wholly unrealistic. A situation could arise where the pressure of time, in unusual circumstances, could mean the authority setting its budget before it knew its allocation.
The GLA, like all major precepting authorities, must issue its precepts by 1st March. If billing authorities have to recalculate their amounts of tax because the GLA, or any other major precepting authority, issues its precept late, it is the precepting authority—here the GLA—that would have to pay the rebilling costs.
The Government have noted the concerns expressed by noble Lords during the Committee stage about the Secretary of State's power to change the last day of February date by which the GLA's budget must be finalised. Amendment No. 303 removes that power.
We cannot accept Amendment No. 304. A power to move the date only forward would leave the Secretary of State unable to act if, in remarkably unusual circumstances, the local government finance settlement was late.
Schedule 5 sets out a robust budget-setting process for the GLA, with deadlines that take full account of the local government finance settlement, the roles of the mayor and assembly, and the GLA's duties as a major precepting authority. I seek support for Amendment No. 303, and ask noble Lords to withdraw their amendments. In seeking to do that, we bring to your Lordships' House our experience. I bring
644
mine as a member of a precepting authority and I see the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, nodding his head. He has distinguished, but similar experience.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I have possibly nearly as long experience of being on the receiving end of precepting authorities, so perhaps we approach these matters from slightly different points of view.
I did not expect to convince the Government. I do not accept that if the RSG settlement comes at the end of November, as it generally does, it is impossible to produce a draft budget for 15th December. I know from experience of a small budget—the complexities are the same—that it is possible. It involves a considerable amount of work and contingency planning would start long before the end of November. However, I shall not pursue this matter and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 294 and 295:
Page 222, line 28, leave out ("a majority of the Assembly members voting") and insert ("the Assembly").
Page 222, line 42. leave out ("a majority of the Assembly members voting") and insert ("the Assembly").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 296 and 297 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 298:
Page 223, line 43. leave out (-a majority of the Assembly members voting") and insert ("the Assembly").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 299 to 302 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 303:
Page 224, line 24, leave out (", or the last day of February,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 304:
Page 224, line 25. leave out ("other") and insert ("earlier").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, perhaps I can speak to Amendment No. 304 at this time as I do not believe my noble friend spoke to it earlier. It seeks to change or delete one of the dates which may he changed under this provision.
What is left is that the Secretary of State can substitute for any reference to 1st February a reference to any other day that he may set out in the regulations. Amendment No. 304 seeks 10 provide that he can only change it to an earlier day. This is in the spirit of the amendments to which my noble friend spoke about not making life more difficult for everybody by moving the process on. Perhaps the noble Baroness will comment on that. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I apologise if I was not as clear as I should have been. I intended to make clear that Amendment No. 304 could not be accepted. It would prevent the Secretary of State from being able to specify a date later than 1st February to take account of extremely

645
unusual circumstances. We are talking of a situation where something arises which may prevent the process from being followed.
We can envisage few circumstances in which that may be necessary. However, we feel it is wise to include the provision.
Lord Tope: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, she has made reference to her very considerable county council experience. Perhaps she can tell me whether the Secretary of State now has similar powers in relation to county councils which may find themselves in similar unlikely but extreme circumstances? If the power does not exist currently in relation to county councils, why should the GLA be put in a privileged position in comparison with such county councils which will have exactly the same difficulties?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the powers do not exist in relation to county councils. However, if on reflection the noble Lord considers the relationship between the GLA and Transport for London and the London Regional Development Agency, he will see that in that context there are slightly different circumstances. We feel therefore that this is a wise provision. We hope that circumstances will not arise where it will be necessary to use the power.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, again before the noble Baroness sits down—I am sorry to prolong this matter—am I right in presuming that the regulations which will be required will have to come before Parliament? That will take some time. This power could only be applied by foreseeing the very exceptional and unusual circumstances some little while ahead. Perhaps we should continue this matter through correspondence. I remain a little unpersuaded as to the position.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I would be delighted to continue this discussion through correspondence. I shall provide copies of the correspondence to any noble Lord who shares our interest.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Perhaps she will kick off the correspondence by giving an example of how this will work and the kind of timetable required for the regulations to pass through their various stages. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 74 [Calculation of basic amount of tax]:
[Amendment No. 305 not moved.]
Clause 75 [Additional calculations: special item for part of Greater London]:
[Amendment No. 306 not moved.]
Clause 76 [The special item for the purposes of section 75]:
[Amendment No. 307 not moved.]
Clause 78 [Calculation of tax for different valuation bands]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 308:
Page 44, line 22, at end insert—
("(4) Where the precepting authority is the Greater London Authority, within one week of the Greater London Authority having calculated the amount to be stated under section 40(2)(a) in respect of any billing authority in Greater London in relation to each category of dwellings in that billing authority's area, the Greater London Authority shall cause to be published such amount in relation to each category of dwellings in that billing authority's area, these amounts to be expressed both as annual and weekly figures, publication to be by way of a prominent printed announcement in at least one local newspaper circulating in that billing authority's area and nominated by that billing authority."").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 308. The Minister will perhaps be unsurprised if I tell him that had he felicitously accepted my amendment on the website I would now happily be withdrawing this particular amendment. However, such are the vagaries of fate that we had to debate that amendment and I am now moving this one.
The effect of the amendment would oblige the GLA to publish the consequences of its budgetary decision on the council tax payers, borough by borough seriatim. The Minister will say that the amendment is not necessary; he will say that it is inconceivable that the media at large will not take notice of these matters; and that the decisions and the impact will be published by every newspaper throughout the land, let alone throughout London. That may well be so. However, even if it is so, I suspect that there will be people who will not read about it or will miss it or whatever.
The purpose of the amendment is to draw out once again the issue of accountability. In our view, it is essential that the mayor is absolutely accountable for his budget, not so much to the assembly—although we have debated that often enough—but openly and obviously to the people of London. While I have the greatest respect for the media at large and enjoy with that particular industry—if I can honour it with that title for the moment—the same love/hate relationship that all people in our positions have with it, the media will report the decisions of the mayor in the manner in which they wish to report them. They may do so in a manner that is not particularly open and obvious. It may even be a manner which the mayor considers to be unfair.
The amendment requires the mayor to do the job for himself. It has been my experience that, unless one makes an absolute hash of it (which I have done from time to time) the quickest way of ensuring that a job is done well is usually to do it oneself. That is the reasoning behind the amendment. It seeks to make the mayor openly and publicly accountable through the people of London. That is not unreasonable, and I should like to think that the Minister will accept it. I suspect, however, that, even at this hour of the night, he may not. I beg to move.
11 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord again. There is absolutely no doubt that the media will report the matter. I suspect that the GLA will wish to publicise it on the Internet and elsewhere. But the requirement is covered by the requirement on the GLA to inform the taxpayers themselves. That is already covered by the Demand Notice Regulations 1993. We are amending those regulations to make sure that the detailed information from the GLA will cover all the functional bodies too. That is the legal requirement; it is a requirement to set out clearly to every council tax payer what the precept covers and where the money is going. That is what is covered by this clause. Any wider circulation may well be wise, but it is not the requirement in law. The existing provision is sufficient. I hope that the noble Lord will not pursue the matter.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I have listened to the Minister's reply with disappointment. I cannot say that it has come as a surprise. It is late, and in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 81 [Minimum budget for Metropolitan Police Authority]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 309:
Page 47, line 8, leave out ("This section applies") and insert ("Subsections (1B) to (1D) apply, in relation to a financial year, to the making by the Authority of calculations required by section 71 in the case of the Metropolitan Police Authority.
(1A) Subsections (2) to (14) apply").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 309 and 310 are grouped together. They deal with what we regard as an unsatisfactory situation as regards the process of arriving at the police budget for London.
As drafted, the Bill provides that, when the mayor has produced his final draft budget and it has been approved or amended by the assembly as the case may be, it is then submitted to the Secretary of State, who may look at it and decide that the budget for the police service is inadequate. If he so decides, he has the right to define a sum that he considers appropriate. The mayor then has a period of 60 days in which to adjust his budget so that he complies with the opinion— which would come in the form of a direction—of the relevant Secretary of State. It is conceivable that he may be able to adjust his budget without adjusting the total budget sum using means of internal adjustments. That would imply that he would have to diminish items to which he had formerly given priority. It could be that a somewhat mischievous mayor would give items other than the police service greater priority, knowing that that would cause difficulty. It might even mean a supplementary rate.
We do not believe that that is a reasonable way to proceed. It is even less appropriate—my reference is to a later amendment—that a two-month period should be considered the right length of time for the matter to be sorted out. We think it much more appropriate that the amount calculated for the police in the mayor's
648
budget should not be in his final budget unless it already has the approval of the relevant Secretary of State. That is achievable, given the procedure which the mayor is required to go through in order to produce his budget. He could submit the police budget to the relevant Secretary of State at the draft budget stage, when the figures will be firm. The figures with regard to the police will be solid and if everyone knew that was the procedure, the Secretary of State's sanction could be given before we reached the final budget stage. The final budget could be approved and everyone would know where the budget stood on the date of that approval.
The present procedure leaves the whole matter in uncertainty at that stage because of the anomaly which would make it possible for the relevant Secretary of State—I assume it would be the Home Secretary— to decide that under the final budget London's police would be inadequately funded.
That is not a reasonable way to go on. I would like to think that the Minister would accept that what we suggest is reasonable and an improvement on what is required on the face of the Bill. Even if he will not accept the amendments in detail—and I am always prepared to concede that we are not likely to be perfect at drafting amendments—if he would accept the principle, then the budgetary situation for the mayor, the assembly and all the people of London would be improved. Even the position of the Secretary of State and the police would be more certain. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I understand what the noble Lord is driving at. It stems from the concern on the one hand to ensure that the police receive adequate resources. We all share that objective. On the other hand there is the concern that the budget-making process is not too disruptive—another objective that we all share.
However, it is our view that the prime responsibility for setting the budget and judging priorities within it must rest with the mayor, subject to the procedure with the assembly to which we referred. To disturb that requirement by saying that the Secretary of State shall have the right to set a significant part of the budget in advance would undoubtedly take a major part of the responsibility away from the mayor. If the mayor has any sense—a feature of all potential candidates for the office now and in the future, I hope—he will ensure that he has reasonable discussions with the Home Secretary to ascertain his views about the matter, as well as with the police authority. Therefore, those considerations will have been built in.
It may be that they will not agree on the last detail, whereas, if the Home Secretary had the power to set the budget right at the beginning, it would be the Home Secretary's budget and not the mayor's.
There is the final fallback that, if the mayor is way out in his provision, the Home Secretary has the power of direction. However, it would be a major difference in the total resources for the police force, in which circumstances the Home Secretary might be tempted to use that power. It is much better to place the

649
responsibility, in every sense of the word, on the mayor to set the budget in the first place, understanding that he will have had discussions with the Home Secretary. Then we should leave the direction by the Home Secretary to extreme circumstances which none of us envisage arising.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I hear what the Minister says. I find his logic deeply flawed. On the one hand he says that it would be unreasonable for the Secretary of State to set a large proportion of the mayor's budget. On the other hand, the Bill says that the Secretary of State can do that. That is the reality. It may be in circumstances that we all hope will not arise. Unfortunately in legislation one has to contemplate circumstances which may arise only rarely.
The fact of the matter is that as the Bill is drafted the relevant Secretary of State has the power to determine a particular sector of the mayor's budget. Therefore, it is deeply flawed logic to say that it is inappropriate for the Secretary of State to have power to determine this matter. The Bill provides that power. I do not believe that it is right. However, it is too late to take this matter any further tonight. I shall carefully study the noble Lord's answer in Hansard. However, from what I have heard I believe that his logic is flawed and I am not satisfied. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 310 not moved.]
Clause 82 [Provisions supplemental to Section 81]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 311:
Page 49, line 16, leave out ("35") and insert ("15").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, if we had sorted out the previous amendment perhaps Amendment No. 311 would have been unnecessary. However, we believe that 35 days is too long a period in which to have uncertainty in this field. We suggest that a better figure is 15. We are all familiar with the sensation of wrapping cold towels around our heads and working extraordinary hours to try to get this Bill off the ground so that London can have its mayor and authority. I see no reason why the mayor should not have to do that for a day or two if he has a little problem over the budget, because the relevant Secretary of State has the power to determine it and he will have to comply. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we believe that to reduce the figure to 15 is seriously unreasonable. In local government legislation the normal provision for making an adjustment following such an intervention is 21 days. The complexity of the GLA budget and that for the functional authorities where there may be knock-on effects makes it necessary to have a relatively lengthy period. Therefore, I do not believe 35 days to be unreasonable in the circumstances, and certainly 15 would be seriously unreasonable. I hope that the noble Lord will not pursue the amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I hear what the Minister says. I remind him that we are establishing a
650
new authority that is supposed to work in new ways. I do not see why it should not be made to work more quickly than existing authorities if required to do so. It would be setting a proper precedent that might persuade other authorities to work in similar ways, which could only be beneficial. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 6 [Procedure for making of substitute calculations by the Authority]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 312 to 314:
Page 225, line 29, leave out ("a majority of the Assembly members voting") and insert ("the Assembly").
Page 225, line 41, leave out ("a majority of the Assembly members voting") and insert ("the Assembly").
Page 226, line 39, leave out ("a majority of the Assembly members voting") and insert ("the Assembly").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 315 not moved.]
Clause 86 [General GLA grant]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 316:
Page 51, line 3, at end insert ("and the cost assumptions on which the amount of the grant has been determined, and these shall be published in such manner as the Secretary of State deems appropriate").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, once again we seek to improve the availability of information to the community at large and local government—in this case London—in particular, by requiring the Secretary of State at the time he announces his determination of grant to publish the cost assumptions on which those sums are calculated. It is a small and simple matter. I beg to move Amendment No. 316.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we see no need for this amendment. The mayor may feel it necessary to publish some of the background consultations that take place before the figures are set, but as far as concern the Secretary of State's responsibilities this amendment will not add anything to the public domain which is not otherwise there under other provisions and practice. Therefore, I do not wish to add this to the Bill.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, we are into the wishes of the Minister rather than what is in the best interests of the people of London. I note the distinction. Having got that admission, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Sheppard of Didgemere Lord Sheppard of Didgemere moved Amendment No. 317:
After Clause 97, insert the following new clause—
(". After section 43(8) of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 there shall be inserted—
"(9) Notwithstanding anything in this section, or in any other enactment, the Greater London Authority may issue a loan instrument secured only on the revenue from new charges or levies raised under section 254 or section 255 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999."").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to enable the Greater London Authority to borrow against the anticipated revenue charges for road use or work-place parking.
I believe that there would be clear agreement between us that the economic success of London depends on keeping London moving; and getting it to move faster. The business community in London is prepared to support hypothecated road user charges both as a way of reducing congestion and to pay for much needed additional investment for London's transport system. It is opposed to a levy on work-place parking which will not do much to change travel behaviour and will simply be an extra tax.
The problem is the initial expenditure on setting up congestion charging. It will cost initially something like £50 million to get a new congestion charge system working. That would include such items as cameras. In addition, it is common ground among all of us that if we are to have road charging we must have improvements to public transport before such charges are introduced. At a minimum, therefore, we should upgrade bus services and bus priority measures. Those will cost about £100 million.
There needs to be substantial investment before public transport can be seen to be improving and people begin to accept politically congestion charging. This initial investment cannot be paid for within PPP or PFI. If the mayor is to introduce road charging in his first term of office, we have no time to lose. It will be extremely tight as it is, even if we found a mayor who spoke in favour of congestion charges.
If the Government's policy for transport is to work, they have to allow for that initial cost to be financed. The obvious way to do that is to allow borrowing against a prudent estimate of anticipated revenue—obviously not the full amount of anticipated revenue. The need to borrow for investment is not just short term. Road user charging has to be part of an overall strategy for improving transport in London. There is a need for a capacity enhancement in the Underground; and not all of that can be paid for through PPP. There is a need for improved commuter rail services, improved interchanges and more radical bus schemes.
The GLA should be able to borrow for such investments on the security of projected revenue from road user charges in addition to its investment within the Government's public expenditure programme, PPP, and so on. That borrowing would be secured solely on this revenue and there would be no recourse to the general funds of the authority.
There is no doubt that the lenders of the money from the private sector would impose quite strict controls, so we have no need to worry about profligate spending. The GLA will have normal local authority borrowing powers, but those are subject to the consent of the Secretary of State and Treasury. We know all too well that the Treasury control under various governments over the past several decades has starved transport in London of the investment it needs.
The amendment would allow the mayor to make a real commitment to long-term investment programmes to support further London's regeneration development. I am sure that introducing road user charges—whatever the party of the mayor—will not be a good short-term vote winner. So if we are to achieve progress on transport in London—I and most of the business community think that congestion charging is fundamental to that; we are already paying for congestion—we have to find a way of helping the mayor to do so. Therefore finding a way for the mayor to borrow against those income streams, and therefore to do things up front, is essential.
Incidentally, both Ministers have given me verbal reassurances about the initial funding. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has even written to me on the subject. It would help me with the amendment—and perhaps help us all to go home a little earlier—if some of them were repeated to the House. In the meantime, it is essential to get London moving and to keep it moving. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I shall not speak to Amendments Nos. 343 and 359 which are in this group. I shall speak to them at their place in the list. I support the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, in his amendment. I inadequately attempted to speak to it at the previous stage. It is an important issue.
Dealing with London's congestion is not just a question of applying sticks; there will be the need to dangle carrots, too. Public transport must be improved, otherwise the incentive to leave the car at home will not be as great as it should be. The people of London will not support what is being done if life is made more difficult rather than public transport being made more attractive.
I am concerned about the Secretary of State's financial constraints under the Bill. I refer not only to the normal constraints which apply to local government but, as we discovered two days ago, the blanket power on the part of the Secretary of State to restrict expenditure on the exercise of any power. That is most extreme and, frankly, very worrying.
A great deal of faith is being put in the new authority and in the mayor to solve some intractable problems. The mayor, Transport for London and the authority need the tools to do the job and I warmly support the amendment.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, in his amendment. I congratulate him on his work in delivering the London business community to support the congestion charge. That is fundamental to the policies which everyone hopes will be implemented if we get the right mayor. Even if we do not, we hope that they will be implemented.
However, I disagree with his views on workplace parking. I also believe that this is fundamental to the success of the scheme, but I suppose that those who run the business community have an interest to declare in having their parking preserved.

653
As was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, it is most important that the public as well as the business community can see some benefits in the proposed improvements before charges are levied on them for workplace parking or congestion. It is essential that all those who live in London can see benefits in a better Underground, bus lanes, more provision for cycling and walking and a better quality of life. No doubt those issues will arise in the next few days when we discuss further amendments.
A method must be found to provide funding for the improvements. I am sure that my noble friend will be able to give us some comfort that a mechanism can be provided for that. If not, there will be a great deal of opposition to the implementation of the congestion charges, which would be a great shame. We must have them somehow and I hope that my noble friend will be able to put forward some solutions.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I should like to express my support for my noble friend Lord Sheppard of Didgemere. His work on behalf of business and commerce in London is well known. Here, in the amendment, one sees the wisdom of business experience. The fact is that these charges will be introduced and people will expect instant results after their introduction. But the reality is that the arrival of a pool of money which would enable anything worth while to appear on the streets of London will take quite a long time to materialise.
The only way of overcoming that specific objection is to accept this amendment and permit the capitalisation of the projected revenue stream so that major expenditure, which will in fact be paid for by such revenue streams, can be undertaken pretty quickly and immediately. Without this provision, the poor people of London will feel that, once again, they are being required to pay, pay and pay and get nothing for it. I do not think that the latter is an acceptable proposition. This particular amendment would overcome that difficulty. If these charges are to be imposed, this amendment should be supported on behalf of the people of London. I am happy to do so.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, perhaps I may say, first, that I completely agree with the economics and, indeed, the politics of what the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, put to us in the sense that, in order to resolve London's desperate transport problems, we need to move to a situation where both the rationing of road space and the provision of resources is generated through a road-user charging system. Once it is up and running, it will provide the resources and help ration in a sensible way the traffic within London to the benefit of Londoners.
However, the resources need to be provided for public transport alternatives and other infrastructure improvements. Therefore, we accept that up-front expenditure is necessary in order both for the road-user charging system to work and for it to be politically acceptable. I cannot entirely agree with the terms of the noble Lord's amendment as regards the explicit
654
trade-off between the borrowing and the future income regarding congestion charges. It is sensible for us all to commit ourselves to the view that we must put some expenditure up front in order for that to work.
However, the Bill already confers powers on TfL to borrow money within the normal finance rules. There are a number of options available to TfL to make transport improvements; for example, it can borrow through the system of credit approvals, it can enter into a PFI arrangement or even approach the Government for additional funding through the GLA transport grant.
TfL will be able to use credit approvals to secure funding by borrowing or through credit arrangements. Credit approvals may be allocated by the Secretary of State for the purposes of TfL or may be allocated by the mayor for such purposes. The mayor will also be able to make the case for additional funding through the GLA transport grant and TfL will be free to negotiate PFI deals on the basis of expected revenue from congestion charging to finance and operate charging systems, so long as the deals are "off-balance sheet"—in other words, sufficient risk is transferred to the private sector—and the borrowing will not score as public expenditure, or need further credit approvals.
We will certainly look favourably at any of these means of raising money for up-front public transport improvements. We believe that the congestion charging proposition will prove to be a major benefit to the future quality of life in London and to its transportation system; and, indeed, to its economy and prosperity. We are therefore extremely anxious to acquire public approval for that system. It is unfortunate that one or two of the mayoral candidates have indicated that they do not favour that system. That is a rather short-term strategy to court immediately popularity while denying Londoners the long-term benefits of such a system.
I accept completely what the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, says about the need to invest up front in order for that system to work and in order for it to be acceptable. I am not in a position to concede the precise mechanism which he proposes, but nevertheless, political imperatives are from time to time recognised by Secretaries of State and even Chancellors of the Exchequer. Therefore I believe that the noble Lord can rest assured that the Government recognise both the economic and political imperatives here. The mechanisms which already exist will be there to deliver, one might say, on top of the benefit in terms of up front public transport expenditure which John Prescott has already effectively bequeathed to the mayor. Over £5 billion is already in the pipeline and committed on public expenditure in London. That will itself go a considerable way towards providing the sort of up front expenditure which the noble Lord seeks. It will be demonstrable to the people of London well before a congestion charging scheme could come on stream.
While I cannot precisely accept his amendment, I hope that the noble Lord will accept my assurances that our intentions are common, our understanding of

655
the politics as well as the economics is common, and that we wish to move ahead on that basis. If I gave him any greater assurances in my letter I shall ensure that noble Lords opposite share them. However, I believe that the noble Lord knows what the Government's commitment is. I deeply appreciate his own commitment to this solution. While, as I say, I cannot accept the precise wording of his amendment, the strategy is clear and we are committed to it. I hope that in the light of that he can see fit to withdraw his amendment.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Sheppard of Didgemere: My Lords, at 11.30 at night that certainly sounds fairly reassuring. Like the
656
noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I shall read some of the stuff over breakfast and look at Hansard tomorrow. Meanwhile, I thank the Minister for his statements, which have certainly helped, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes before midnight.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the Food Standards Bill
Thursday, 14th October 1999.
The Committee met at half-past four of the clock.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Skelmersdale) in the Chair.]
Clause 33 [Consequence of Agency losing certain functions]:
On Question, Whether Clause 33 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I oppose the Question that Clause 33 shall stand part of the Bill. To have a discussion about this part of the Bill, Clause 33 is as good a place as any.
If I read Clause 33 correctly, it means that at some time in the future it is possible, if the Scottish Parliament decides it, that it could set up a separate Scottish food agency from the agency being set up by the Bill. That is how I understand it; if I am wrong I shall be told.
If that is the case, we could have a situation where the Scottish food agency could be operating quite different standards and quite different rules and regulations from the agency in the rest of the United Kingdom. That perhaps would not matter if the Scottish food industry was operating to higher standards, but even if that were the case it would still cause problems for the food industry in Scotland.
When I spoke on the first day of Committee I pointed out the importance of fishing and fish processing in Scotland. Indeed, if my memory serves me right, the top four or five ports of landing by size of landing in the United Kingdom are in Scotland. The great bulk of fish caught by the British fishing fleet is landed in Scotland.
Much as we may eat a little fish in Scotland, we do not eat that much. Therefore a good deal of it has to come south or has to go overseas, in the case certainly of shellfish. I take fish as one example; it could be beef or anything else. My concern is that if we have a Scottish agency separate from the agency in the rest of the United Kingdom, and it it is operating different rules and regulations, producers could find themselves trying to operate parallel production: one line to satisfy the standards demanded by the Scottish agency and another to satisfy those demanded by the UK agency for its large English market.
It fills me with horror that, inside what is after all a 300-year-old common market, we would have a situation of non-tariff barriers. I do not want to be told that it would never happen that way because if that is so this provision should not be in the Bill. If something is not likely to happen because common sense dictates
CWH 146
it should not happen, we certainly should not have a provision in the Bill that might bring it about. It would not involve the food standards agency but it could
At the moment the Chief Medical Officer in England has decided that it will be safe to sell beef-on-the-bone in England. The medical officers of health in Scotland and Wales have decided that they are not yet convinced and we have something of a deadlock on that subject.
If there are separate agencies the Committee will be able to see that we could have many more instances of the advice given by the agency or to the agency in one country being different from that given to the agency in another country.
The problems are obvious. While farmers are prepared to live with it for the moment, everyone knows that they will not happily live with it for very long. Certainly industry would not live with different standards being imposed north and south of the Border and then finding that the standards they used to meet their Scottish market were not adequate to meet their English one. It is so impracticable. It is incredible that the Government are serious about even contemplating the food standards agency being divided up, with one agency for Scotland and one for the rest of the United Kingdom.
I see that the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, is present for the debate. He is well aware of the issue. We have been over it many times. I am not rehearsing devolution—I accept entirely what has happened—but there are some bodies that we should think twice about devolving. The problem that we are having with the French at the moment is that the French food standards agency is saying no to British beef, which is bad enough inside the European single market. It would be 10 times worse if the same kind of situation were to arise within the single market of the United Kingdom.
I hope the Government can at least set my mind at rest on this matter and if my reading of the clause is correct, they can offer some explanation of how they think separate food standards agencies would work in the two parts of the United Kingdom. If they tell me it will never come about, then I suggest that these clauses should not be in the Bill.
The Earl of Selborne: I follow my noble friend because there is a similarity here with the time m hen the Nature Conservancy Council was split and the time in 1991 when English Nature, Scottish National Heritage and the Countryside Council for Wales took its place. There was another example of a United Kingdom organisation which had a job of setting standards—these were environmental standards: for example, standards for sites of special scientific interest. It was recognised—the point was made in a report of your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology—that standards had to be UK based. Otherwise, there would have been total mayhem when it came to enforcing the standards in Brussels or indeed, as the case might have been, in an international forum such as CITES. What was determined then was that there should be a statutory committee, the Joint

CWH 147
Nature Conservation Committee, which still continues in being. It had the job of ensuring that the component parts of what had been the Nature Conservancy Council—now the three country agencies— co-ordinated their activities in so far as setting standards was concerned.
I agree with my noble friend that it is far better not to put yourself in a position where you could quite easily have separate standards set within the United Kingdom, which had to be enforced in an international arena, or where advice had to be given to government on standards within the United Kingdom. It is totally unacceptable that standards should deviate between parts of the United Kingdom and for that reason, I agree entirely with my noble friend that any suggestion that either Scotland, or for that matter, Northern Ireland, should determine that there should be a separate agency within their area of responsibility will lead to great confusion.
At the very least, therefore, I should say that if it is decided to go this route of anticipating the day when the Scottish Parliament or the Northern Ireland Assembly may so determine the matter—this is very much a counsel of the second best—there should then be a contingency for a joint committee, such as the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. That would ensure that the agencies determining food standards are required to co-ordinate their activities. I therefore suggest that at least the Joint Nature Conservation Committee should be taken as a precedent in that respect.
Viscount Thurso: I decided that there are several things that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, and I share. One of them is clearly "ichthyophilia" which, if my Greek is correct, is the love of fish. Beyond that, I have to say that we diverge. He has put two separate arguments into this interesting debate and I thank him for raising this matter, because it is very important that these things should be clarified. Yesterday, when we were discussing another matter he had brought up, he said that he had been rather a butterfly in the Committee. I do not object to that at all—I am delighted that he brings these matters before us because they are important and need to be dealt with. It is lovely to have him here, "stinging like a butterfly and floating like a bee"—I am sorry, it should be the other way round!
There are two distinct arguments. There is the argument as it relates quite precisely to this Bill, but there is also the underlying argument which goes right to the heart of devolution. As he has drawn our attention to the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, is far more competent to deal with these matters than ever I could be, I shall not go into that in great detail. Suffice to say that it seems that the effect of devolution was precisely to devolve certain competencies, which we all agreed on last year, to the Scottish Parliament.
There will always be certain anomalies. There will be moments, as the whole business of devolution develops from its current infancy into a more mature form of government, where things will appear, when
CWH 148
taken in detail, to be awkward or odd. This is one of those things—clearly, it is more appropriate to have a UK agency, but we have devolved the competence to deal with these matters. There may indeed be circumstances where Scotland wishes to act on that, and I have no problem there. If Scotland wishes to act in matters of food standards and food safety, then let the Scottish Parliament act. Equally, however, it is quite appropriate for the UK Parliament to reserve to itself, through this clause, the right to deal with that circumstance if it arises.
I do not go down the route of saying that it will never happen and therefore we do not need it. It is unlikely that it will happen. It has gone through the Assembly of Wales and through the relevant committee in the Scottish Parliament and they have both agreed to the setting up and commended what has been done in this Bill, as I understand it. I do not want to pray in aid the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee report again, but that has also covered the matter.
The matter has been dealt with responsibly in the context of the inevitable anomalies that will occur with devolution. It is right that this clause be here to provide for a circumstance which, whilst unlikely, may arise.
Lord Sewel: As he was moving towards the conclusion of his comments, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, said he did not want to go over the devolution settlement but, in substance, that is what he was trying to do. We are faced with the inevitable consequence of the distribution of legislative competence established by the Scotland Act. That made it absolutely clear, and it was not a matter of great dispute at the time, that the Scottish Parliament would have legislative competence in the area which would include the food standards agency. That matter was generally accepted.
If that position is accepted—and the fundamental point is that nothing in this Bill can change that, because that legislative or statutory framework is established by the Scotland Act—this clause, whether it is in the Bill or not, does not and cannot disturb that statutory framework on the distribution of legislative competence between the two parliaments.
I invite the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, to see this clause as some kind of prudential provision, indicating what would happen if the Scottish Parliament decided to exercise the powers it undoubtedly has under the Scotland Bill—powers which all of us here, and certainly members of the Scottish Parliament, do not wish to see exercised in a way which would establish a separate Scottish food standards agency. However, because the legislative competence resides at the end of the day at the Scottish Parliament, there is a degree of common sense in indicating in this Bill what the process and the steps would be if that Parliament established its own food standards agency and how we would withdraw from what is now a UK body. It is a matter of sensible prudence to make the provisions clear in the Act, because there is a situation where there is legislative competence held by the Scottish Parliament and it agrees that it is a UK body. No one

CWH 149
is in dispute about that, least of all the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, so let us try not to build up something which does not exist.
Lord Rotherwick: Since we have now heard from the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, that there is a possibility of the Scottish Parliament exercising its powers—
Lord Sewel: I did not say there is a possibility of the Scottish Parliament exercising its powers or, if I did, I was mistaken. I was saying that the Scottish Parliament is more than content to go down the road of having a UK body but it is nevertheless the case that, in terms of the statutory framework established by the Scotland Act, the Scottish Parliament has legislative competence in this area.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Rotherwick: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I should more correctly have said "could" exercise its powers to have a separate food standards agency. Then one must go back again and explore the second clause which is all about how the agency is consisted. In the case that it could do this, provisions must exist to allow for the two members to be appointed by the Scottish Ministers to be taken back. I would ask the Minister to give an answer on the unlikely event of that happening.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Hayman): We have had a succinct debate that has covered very clearly the issues that we have at stake here. As my noble friend Lord Sewel said, nothing in this Bill can change the legislative framework in which the decision was taken by Parliament, when passing the Scotland Act, that food safety and food standards were devolved matters and matters of competence for the Scottish Parliament.
That having been said, I can perhaps reassure the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, that the case that he put, which I have put during Committee, that food safety is a matter that does not respect internal borders and, indeed, that we have a single market for food in the United Kingdom, is one that has been taken on board by the UK Parliament and by the devolved authorities. That is precisely why all those authorities have recognised the sense of having the UK agency and are setting up exactly that sort of agency. The food standards agency will work in a way that allows the UK to have shared access to the best scientific resources, avoids the need for duplication that separate agencies would bring and helps us to deliver consistent advice on food safety and standards across the country, which is in the interests of both consumers and producers of food.
The issue of the likelihood of change is not an imminent one. We have had very clear and distinct views from the Scottish Parliament on that matter. What is at stake here is whether we recognise as legislators that the possibility of change is there in the legislative framework; it is there in the Scotland Act, it is possible. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, said that he did not want to be told that
CWH 150
it would never happen—never is a very long time. The possibility of people's views changing is envisaged in the legislative framework and it is, therefore, prudent that in this clause we make legislative provision for dealing with exactly the sorts of consequences, described by the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, of looking at what the effects would be on a UK agency and what consequential changes would have to be made. As I say, I do not in any way envisage that happening in the foreseeable future, but we are making prudent legislative provision against the possibility that at some further point in time the devolved authorities in Scotland and Northern Ireland, which have the power, make their own primary legislation to set up separate arrangements for food safety and standards or withdraw from some of the functions of the agency. These are the adjustments to the Food Standards Act in Clause 33; for example, the arrangement for the appointment of members, as the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick pointed out, and the financial provisions and the transfer of any property rights, interest and liabilities as a result of changes in the structure of the agency.
Removing this provision would leave us without a principal procedure to put matters right. But perhaps even more importantly, I believe it would be sending a signal that Westminster does not accept the basis on which Parliament legislated. The fact that the Scottish Parliament has decided not to exercise those powers and wishes to be part of the UK agency is something we all welcome and would wish to preserve, but I do not think we can ignore the fact that that is not the basis on which Parliament legislated under the Scotland Act.
I can perhaps reassure the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, that some of the potential for there being different rules and regulations in different parts of the United Kingdom is not suddenly created by this possibility. We discussed the issue of greentop milk on the first day of the Committee. It is already possible for secondary legislation in Scotland to invoke a different regime in the areas of food safety and standards. It happens very infrequently, and it happens when there is a particular need for it, but we are not talking about a sudden change that would occur were Scotland—as we do not expect it to do, and as I do not believe there is any intention to do—at some point in the future to decide to set up a separate framework for exercising their competency in food safety and food standards.
This clause simply reflects the situation under devolution as it is, and gives a fallback position which I think is absolutely justifiable and, as the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, said, was looked at specifically by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, which recognised that it is essential to put exactly that sort of provision in the Bill. I hope that members of the Committee will agree that the clause should stand part of the Bill.
The Earl of Selborne: Before my noble friend responds, will the Minister kindly say whether, in the cause of provident legislative provision, the issue

CWH 151
should be addressed in the unlikely event—which we all accept is most unlikely—that the Scottish Parliament wishes to exercise the powers that devolve to it? In that unlikely event, would there be any merit in putting on the face of the Bill—again I add the words "provident legislative provision"—a requirement that at least the agencies should compare notes; in other words, have a statutory committee? Would that in any way help, or would it simply be unnecessary?
Baroness Hayman: I am not sure that it would help to place it on the face of the Bill. We are dealing here with the changes that would have to be made to this piece of legislation were that withdrawal to take place. I am absolutely certain that it would be sensible to have exactly that sort of structure, and that might well fall out of the consultation on the Order in Council that took place. But to set up a statutory committee for co-operation is almost recreating the structure that would be taken apart by the Scottish Parliament deciding to act in this way. We would have to look at what actually was being proposed, because there could be alternative routes that were taken dealing with that situation as it arises. I said that this was a prudent provision given that there was competence. It is not prudent to go through the next line of what we would do in terms of alternative structures, although I am sure that any UK government and any Scottish Parliament and Executive would wish to make proper arrangements for dealing with those sorts of interface issues to which he has referred.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am as unconvinced about this issue today as I was when we debated the devolution of these powers to the Scottish Parliament in the Scotland Bill. They are exactly the same issues I raised of there being an internal market in the United Kingdom with the possibility therefore of different standards being imposed.
Both the Minister and the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, seemed to think that if the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee looked at the matter and was satisfied, that was somehow game, set and match. I have to tell the Minister and the noble Viscount that in fact the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee does not discuss the merits of the issue. The questions it asks itself are more to do with secondary legislative powers. For example, it asks itself whether this secondary legislation should be dealt with by affirmative or negative procedures. It asks whether the Henry VIII clauses are acceptable. This is a substantial Henry VIII clause, and I am not convinced that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, would consider it appropriate so to amend an Act of Parliament by secondary legislation that the Act was changed out of all recognition.
That is the logical consequence of what may happen. One changes it from being a United Kingdom statute to being an England-only statute. One has to go right back to many of the clauses, including Clause 2, and change the composition of the board. If I had been on the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee,
CWH 152
I would have said that was closer to Henry VIII than I like, but the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee does not discuss the merits and demerits, whether it is right or wrong that the Scottish Parliament should have these powers. It discusses whether the legislative power in the Bill for dealing with secondary legislation is appropriate to what has been done. It does not say that the issue is acceptable; it says that the legislative way is either right or wrong.
We are right to look at the issue. We are being told that it would not be sensible to have two agencies in the United Kingdom, but we ought to allow for it. That is quite an interesting piece of law-making and I may apply it to another Bill.
Baroness Hayman: We are not saying that in this Bill; that has already been said in an Act of Parliament which is the Scotland Act. We are dealing with the consequences of what has already been decided by both Houses of Parliament.
Viscount Thurso: Before the noble Lord responds, perhaps I may add one further point. The statement has been made that no one can see this happening. We have a very good precedent in the matter of BSE, where the Northern Irish as a result of having a slightly different regime were able to go back to selling beef far faster than other parts of the United Kingdom. I can see in the example of fish, which the noble Lord has already mentioned, a situation where the Scottish Parliament might well wish to include something to aid it to sell abroad or for whatever other reasons. We cannot necessarily take the argument that because, as we see it, it is a UK agency, the Scottish Parliament would not necessarily find any area where it might wish to enact some legislation. It is a perfectly appropriate consequence of that that the agency in this legislation provides the ability to deal with the consequences.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: All I can say is that I hope on that day I am not involved in any of the food-processing industries if I have to set up two parallel lines in order to deal with my two markets. I rather fear that the Scottish market might be sacrificed in favour of a larger English one. The Government and the noble Viscount tell me that will never happen. If it will never happen, why are we not saying that we will have one agency in the United Kingdom? The Scotland Act does not refer to the need for two agencies in the United Kingdom Food Standards Bill. We could stick to one agency, and if at some time in the future we decided that the Scottish Parliament wanted to go its own way, we could come back to primary legislation. Then we could deal with issues such as the one raised by my noble friend Lord Selborne—that in the event of two agencies being set up there would have to be some kind of co-ordinating mechanism to make sure that we did not get into some very deep trouble both north and south of the border.
If the Government are doing all this as a precautionary principle—"we don't think it will happen but we have to make provision because the Scotland Act says we should"—why not go that step further and do as my noble friend suggests? That is,

CWH 153
we should put something in on that precautionary principle to say that in the event of this happening some kind of joint committee should be set up to co-ordinate these matters and to allow a channel of communication between the two agencies.
I am glad that I raised this point because it is profoundly worrying. I suspect and hope that if I have done nothing else I have probably prevented any chance of a separate agency and distinctly separate standards being set up, because people in the industry would be extremely concerned. If the possibility is there in legislation, one is entitled to ask whether it might be carried out. We shall waste a great deal of time and paper if clause after clause are put in Bills in case one day we decide to do it. I am afraid I am of the view that in that case, we have primary legislation to do it; we do not do it by Orders in Council.
I know when I am beaten by Her Majesty's Government. I knew it in the devolution Bill and I know it now. However, will the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, who is in the food business, explain to the food processors in Thurso that perhaps at some time in the future there might be separate agencies with separate rules for Scotland and England? I believe they would meet that with a fair degree of horror. They would certainly be campaigning against him in that case. But they campaigned against him anyway, as I recollect, in the elections to the Scottish Parliament.
5 p.m.
Viscount Thurso: They did, and I am delighted to say that I received more votes than any other party in the constituency in which I was campaigning.
Does the noble Lord not recognise that the Scots export to many countries in Europe, to America, to South America, and all over the world? Our wonderful smoked salmon that we both love goes everywhere in the world. It goes to all sorts of regulatory areas. I fail to see what is the great brouhaha about having some slightly different regulations between England and Scotland.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Dare I say to the noble Viscount that England and Scotland are in one large internal market, which we have been in for 300 years and in which there is free trade? We all accept that if one goes to trade abroad in a foreign country one has to deal with the issues as they affect that foreign country. I hope the noble Viscount is not saying that he would be comfortable to have England treated like that.
Lord Sewel: Following the logic of the noble Lord's argument, I cannot resist asking a simple question. Is he advocating a European food standards agency?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: There is one being advocated. As far as looking at standards as non-tariff barriers, in a single market—and that includes Europe—on all these things the sooner we have common standards we all agree to, the better, because then there will not be the market distortion we are getting at the moment, for example, with the French
CWH 154
being difficult. It helps everybody if we can all play to the same standards and the same rules. I do not believe that the noble Lord has managed to trap me at all on that. He underlines the importance of it.
I just hope that at some time in the future the other party who would like to do a little more division of the United Kingdom does not gain control of the Scottish Parliament, because those are exactly the kind of things it will use to help it on its merry way. The Government have delivered it all to them in pieces of legislation like this. I beg leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 33 agreed to.
Clause 34 agreed to.
Clause 35 [Devolution in Scotland]:
Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman moved Amendment No. 88:
Page 19, line 9, at end insert—
("(2) It is not outside the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, by virtue of the reservation of matters relating to the constitution mentioned in paragraph 1 of Schedule 5 to that Act, to remove, alter or confer relevant functions of the Agency which are exercisable in or as regards Scotland.
(3) Nothing in subsection (2) affects any legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament apart from this section.
(4) Relevant functions of the Agency in relation to Northern Ireland shall be regarded as functions of a Minister of the Crown for the purposes of paragraph 1(a) of Schedule 2 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (excepted matters).
(5) In this section "relevant functions of the Agency" means functions relating to, or to matters connected with—

(a) food safety or other interests of consumers in relation to food; or

(b) the safety of animal feedingstuffs or other interests of users of animal feedingstuffs.")

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 89 not moved.]
Clause 36 [Interpretation]:
Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 19, leave out line 13
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 91 not moved.]
Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman moved Amendments Nos. 92 to 94:
Page 19, line 24, at end insert ("; and

"the 1991 Order" means the Food Safety (Northern Ireland) Order 1991")

Page 19, line 29, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("(3) Expressions used—

(a) as regards England and Wales and Scotland, in this Act and in the 1990 Act, or

(b) as regards Northern Ireland, in this Act and the 1991 Order,

have, unless the context otherwise requires, the same meaning in this Act as in that Act or that Order (except that in this Act "animal" includes any bird or fish).")
Page 19, line 33, after ("order)") insert (", or under the corresponding provision of Article 2(2) of the 1991 Order.")
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 37 [Subordinate legislation]:
Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 19, line 40, leave out subsection (2)
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 38 agreed to.
Clause 39 [Financial provisions]
Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 20, line 45, leave out ("enactment") and insert ("Act")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Thurso Viscount Thurso moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 21, line 9, at end insert —
("( ) Any funding made available to enforcement authorities for enforcing relevant legislation (as defined in section 15) shall be designated as being used by enforcement authorities for that purpose only.")
The noble Viscount said: This is a probing amendment. I am grateful to the Consumers' Association which suggested it to us. As I understand the situation, funds that have been made available to local authorities are not ring-fenced and they can, if they so wish, transfer them for other purposes. For example, I believe that additional money was recently given to local authorities following the Pennington Report to ensure that measures were taken to protect the public against E.coli but without any particular mechanism for ensuring that this was how the money was to be spent. The concern is that there needs to be a more effective mechanism for ensuring that moneys made available in this way are spent in the manner in which they are meant to be spent. Therefore I wish to know whether any such measure exists within the Bill, or whether this is something that we should consider. I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): It is important that local authorities take their enforcement duties seriously and devote sufficient resources to do that. I recognise that if you were to ring-fence the money to be given for this purpose, that is one route but it could only be done at the expense of a serious loss of independence of local government. The great majority of central government funding for local authorities is not hypothecated, which is consistent with the independence of local authorities and, indeed, consistent with the importance that the Government attach to local accountability for local spending and taxation decisions.
I say to the noble Viscount that we have no plans to ring-fence food law enforcement resources. We strongly feel that it is a matter for local government to set their own priorities. I am sad that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is engaged in moving other amendments in the main Chamber because yesterday he suggested that, if we were looking for consistency in
CWH 156
amendments, we should not look to him. I often read the Liberal Democrats' election manifesto of two years ago where it says of local authorities:
"We will … give them greater discretion over spending".
It seems rather inconsistent then to say that we want to ring-fence. I believe that local authorities are best placed to decide what their priorities should be and how they should spend their money, taking account of local circumstances. By and large, local authorities have done that effectively. However, the noble Viscount would be right to say that some local authorities have not done as well as others, and this is where the importance of monitoring on the part of the agency comes in, as we discussed at some length yesterday. I would expect the agency, in its function of monitoring, to have the ability to promote a much more consistent approach across all local authorities. It would also have the ability, of course, to make public the results of its monitoring work. That could be a very effective tool for bringing to the attention of both the people who lead local government in a particular area and also the public, as to whether there are any particular problems.
While it is important that we discuss this matter, it is best left to individual local authorities to make these decisions. We have a very important safeguard in the monitoring role of the agency.
Viscount Thurso: I am very grateful to the Minister for explaining the Government's position. The possibility is that if I kept speaking long enough and my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, in another chamber, spoke reasonably briefly, he would come to respond himself. I shall be very brief.
The noble Lord mentioned the manifesto, of which he has obviously read more than I have. I fought that election without bothering to read the manifesto, but I was not a candidate!
On these Benches we have always been quite keen on hypothecation in certain areas. We certainly see a place for hypothecation but now is not the moment to argue about that. Suffice to say that, much as we admire many things about Gladstone, the Consolidated Fund is perhaps one of his negatives that might now bear a small amount of revision. We are delighted to see that the Government have taken on hypothecation, at least in principle, and that the Deputy Prime Minister has seen such value in its use. So there is a place for hypothecation.
Broadly I agree with the Minister that local government should be given freedom and discretion, but that does not mean that, in particular areas, some linkage should not be necessary—particularly where one is asking the local authority to enforce legislation, where there is a very distinct requirement, as opposed to the discretion; for example in leisure and tourism. It is perfectly right for a local authority to decide to spend a little less on tourism and leisure and a little more on looking after people in their area, whatever they want to do. This is a particular case, however, of seeing that enforcement takes place.

CWH 157
I have listened carefully to what the noble Lord said: I should like to read it in Hansard and see what my noble friend has to say. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman moved Amendment No. 98:
Page 2 l, line 44, leave out ("the Northern Ireland Act 1998") and insert ("any Act")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 39, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 40 [Minor and consequential amendments and repeals]
Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman moved Amendment No. 99:
Page 22, line 4, at end insert—
("(2A) The National Assembly for Wales (Transfer of Functions) Order 1999 shall have effect, in relation to any Act mentioned in Schedule 1 to the Order, as if any provision of this Act amending that Act was in force immediately before the Order came into force.")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 40, as amended, agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 5.13 to 5.23 p.m.]
Clause 41 [Transfer of property, rights and liabilities to the Agency]:
Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman moved Amendment No. 100:
Page 22, line 15, leave out ("Food Safety (Northern Ireland) Order 1991") and insert ("1991 Order").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 41, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 42 [Power to make transitional provision etc.]:
Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman moved Amendment No. 101:
Page 23, line 11, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
("(by) the First Minister and deputy First Minister acting jointly, in relation to provision dealing with transferred matters (within the meaning of section 4(1) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998).").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 42, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 43 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 23, line 14, after ("section") insert ("and paragraph 4(2) of Schedule 5)").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I will speak, with the permission of the Committee, to Amendments Nos. 116, 117, 119, 125, 126 and 128. This is a further group of technical amendments to Clause 43, Schedule 3 and Schedule 5 to the Bill, to take account of the changes made to the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 following devolution. Under the Scotland Act 1998, functions under the Food and Environment Protection Act which are exercisable in or as regards Scotland have been transferred to Scottish Ministers. To facilitate this it was necessary to make some technical amendments to the Act, and that was done in June this year by an order made under the Scotland Act 1998.
These amendments are essential to avoid any inconsistencies in the statute book, and I would urge their acceptance by the Committee. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 23, line 19, at end insert—
("(3A) Until the day appointed under section 3(1) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, this Act has effect with the substitution —

(a) for references to the First Minister and deputy First Minister acting jointly, of references to a Northern Ireland Department;

(b) for references to an Act of the Northern Ireland Assembly, of references to a Measure of the Northern Ireland Assembly; and

(c) for references to transferred matters within the meaning of section 4(1) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, of references to transferred matters within the meaning of section 43(2) of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973;

(d) for references to paragraph 1(a) of Schedule 2 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998, of references to paragraph 1(a) of Schedule 2 to the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973.")

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 43, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Constitution etc. of the Agency]:
Viscount Thursomoved Amendment No. 103A:
Page 25, line 33, at end insert—
("Declaration of interests, etc.
13. Proposed members of the Agency shall complete a declaration detailing their business interests, whether they have been made bankrupt, been a party to voluntary arrangements, whether there are any judgements against them, whether they have been convicted of any offence involving fraud or dishonesty or an offence under legislation (whether or not of the United Kingdom) relating to companies (including insider dealing), building societies, banking or other financial services, or if they have been disqualified as a director or of any other material information, and this declaration should be publicly available for inspection one month before appointment.")
The noble Viscount said: This again is by way of a probing amendment. I had rather hoped that my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones would be here to do the probing, but in his absence I shall do my best. Essentially this is about trying to see what the Government's thinking is in relation to the probity of those who are going to be members of the agency. I am sure noble Lords are aware that when one becomes a director and one's company is listed on the Stock Exchange, one has a very complicated form to fill out which goes into an immense amount of detail. The Stock Exchange—as a number of other bodies—takes a tremendous amount of care that people who are to be directors of public companies are the right sort of people, do not have criminal records, have riot been bankrupt, and declare in all ways possible their interest and their probity.
We should like to know whether people who are appointed to government bodies or government agencies have to go through a similar process. It may well be that there is an existing process, about which I do not know, and that may be the simple answer the Minister will give me. If that is the case, I should very

CWH 159
much like to have it on the record. If that is not the case, I should like to explore why that is so and whether we should, in fact, have some mechanism. We have a duty of care to ensure that people who are to sit on bodies such as this agency—from whom we are going to expect a good deal and in whom the public are going to put a great deal of trust—are the right people. I beg to move.
Baroness Byford: Before the Minister replies, I should like to refer to the whole question of age, which I do not recollect seeing included. So many committees to which one puts one's name forward have an age limit and I wondered whether that applies in this case. I support the support.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am happy to answer the first point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, immediately and say there is no age limit, and I am very glad to do that. I listened with great interest to the noble Viscount and I accept very much the need and responsibility for a great deal of care to be put into the process of appointment in ensuring that the people who are appointed are of a very high standard. I do not think any noble Lord would disagree with that.
I am grateful also for the opportunity to tell your Lordships a little more about the process of appointment and how we will ensure that the points raised by the noble Viscount are adequately covered. I have no doubt that getting very high quality people with leadership skills as members of the agency is crucial to its success and in ensuring that the public have great confidence in what it is doing.
We think that the Bill's provision contained in Clause 2(3)(b) ensures that the question of conflict of interest will be considered when appointing members. A provision in paragraph 9 on publishing the register of members' interests also ensures that this information is in the public domain.
I also draw the Committee's attention to a change made to the Bill in another place where the Government accepted an Opposition amendment to give the agency a duty to publish a register of members' interests. I am sure the Committee will agree that this is a very important guarantee of openness and transparency.
I recognise the anxiety about conflicts of interests. If the appointments process failed to assess this matter thoroughly the consequences could clearly be serious. I need hardly say that the appointments process in any case has been conducted under Nolan rules. These require applicants to sign a declaration about conflicts of interests. The information supplied to applicants made it clear that it was essential for all agency members to serve without any actual or perceived significant conflict of interest. The interviewing panels were and are scrutinising the information supplied by applicants in the declaration. Application forms and CVs are very important as regards the probing of applicants at an interview.
We have said all along that the people appointed to the agency will be appointed on the basis of their individual qualities and experience, not to represent
CWH 160
particular interests. On that basis we have not invited any organisations to propose people for membership. Indeed we placed advertisements in June, inviting individuals to apply, and we made it clear that we would not consider anyone unless he or she had submitted an application. I am pleased to say that there was a good response and over 120 people applied for the posts of chair and deputy, and well over 600 people applied to serve as members.
An interview panel made up of representatives from the Department of Health, from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards as the independent assessor, has now considered all the applications for the posts of chair and deputy. The Secretary of State and his equivalents are now considering the shortlist and we expect an announcement in the next few weeks. As regards members, interview panels are now considering member applications. Again, it is hoped that those who are appointed will be announced in December. I hope I have indicated that these appointments are being conducted in a rigorous way which will ensure that the chair, deputy and members of the agency will be people of the highest calibre, integrity and probity. That, of course, is absolutely right if this agency is to get off on the right foot, as we all wish. I hope that I have reassured the noble Viscount on that.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Byford: Before my noble friend replies, I ask the Minister a question following on from yesterday's discussions when my noble friend Lord Rotherwick, who is not in his seat at the moment, raised the whole question of the make-up of the committee of 12 members.
I know that notices have gone out and people have put their names forward, but can the Minister clarify whether any appointments will be made before this Bill has reached the statute book? That might be of concern to us. What is the position?
Lord Clement-Jones: Perhaps I may ask another question, so that the Minister has to rise again only once. In his response I heard him talk about Schedule 2 in terms of the declaration of interests. Can he give chapter and verse, because I must confess that I have looked through it and I cannot see the relevant wording. When we composed the amendment, we certainly looked quite carefully at the Bill to see what requirements it contained as regards the declaration. I know that the Minister referred to the substantive clause, but there was a further reference to the schedule in what he said which I could not quite understand.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: That was my fault—I should have said paragraph 9 of Schedule 1. If I confused the noble Lord by not mentioning the schedule, I apologise.
As far as the other point made by the noble Baroness is concerned, my understanding is that those appointments will be made after the Bill is cleared.
Viscount Thurso: I am grateful for that reply, both for the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has accepted the spirit in which we moved the amendment and for his reassurance as to the examination of candidates to ensure both the quality that they will be required to display and an open declaration of their interests.
I am grateful for the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, in relation to age. I had not thought of it, but it is a valid one. As the years go by, I think of it more and more. I am equally pleased that the Minister was able to reassure the Committee.
There was one point in the Minister's reply that I found particularly important, and with which I agree. He said that people will be appointed as individuals to act—if I can coin a phrase from your Lordship's House—"on their own honour". It is vastly better than having a bunch of people sent in by various representational sections which always ends up with the wrong kind of politics. I am very pleased that people are being appointed for their individual ability and that some experience may not preclude them from being appointed.
In the light of the Minister's response, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Advisory committees]:
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 104:
Page 25, line 43, at end insert—
("( ) Before appointing a person as chairman or member of the advisory committee, the authority making the appointment shall have regard to the desirability of securing that a variety of skills and experience is available among the members of the committee (including experience in matters related to food safety and standards including nutrition and labelling or other interests of consumers in relation to food).")
The noble Lord said: Far be it for me to praise government drafting, but Clause 2(3)(a) is admirable in its effect on the way in which the agency itself will be made up. That is wording to which we can all subscribe as far as it applies to the agency itself in terms of ensuring that there is a variety of skills available to members of the agency. It goes on at greater length in terms of the experience relating to food safety or other consumers' interests. That is an excellent assurance to members of the public that the agency 'will not just be sectoral in the way that it is composed.
By the same token, consumer organisations feel that they ought to be made explicit in terms of the advisory committees of the agency, and the purport of this group of amendments, Amendments Nos. 104, 106, 109 and 110, is designed to reflect the same wording in so far as they reflect the other advisory committees for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, where they are set up for the regions of England, and any other advisory committees.
That kind of safeguard is needed, but I cannot see that it is necessarily encompassed within Clause 2(3)(a) itself, and I do not know that one could read into that
CWH 162
clause a duty to ensure that advisory committees have the same requirement for a variety of skills. I await the Minister's reply with interest. I beg to move.
[The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 5.38 to 5.48 p.m.]
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I respond to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. First, I thank him for his congratulations to the Government on the skills with which we have put this in. I notice that his congratulations did not go to the extent that he repeated word for word the words in the Bill; he has added one or two words in relation to nutrition and so on, which we have already debated.
We wholly endorse the principle underlined in the amendments of having a variety of interests among members of committees, but we do not consider it right to spell this out in the Bill for advisory committees. Apart from the regional committees, with which I shall deal first, we are essentially dealing with non-statutory committees. We believe the agency needs some flexibility on how those should be set up.
In relation to the regional committees, the appropriate authorities will wish to ensure that they are not dominated by one particular interest. It is right, however, that they should exercise their own judgment in relation to that. I am tempted to quote again from the Liberal Democrat manifesto on the power of competence of the devolved authorities, but I shall resist. As far as the specialist advisory committees are concerned, they are clearly key to ensuring that the agency's actions are all based on the best available science. Members of those committees will of course have to be appointed on merit and be clearly recognised as the best possible people in their particular field.
I would expect the agency to follow the Government's practice and include public interest or consumer representation on these committees. I remind the Committee that the agency itself, in considering their advice, will ensure that the wider public interest is taken into account. We should not rule out the possibility that the agency might need some purely specialist committees, including for example perhaps a specialist consumer committee. We have already debated the subject of nutrition labelling at some length so I will not repeat the arguments deployed on those matters in relation to the wording of the noble Lord's amendments. We do, however, seem to have the balance right in terms of setting out the principles in relation to the appointment of members to the agency. It is also right to allow some discretion as far as the regional committees and the specialist committees are concerned.
I turn to the suggestion made by the noble Lord concerning the concept of lead authority in relation to joint committees. I appreciate the reasons for the noble Lord's suggestion. One has to reflect that the reason for wishing to have joint committees is that more than one department may need their advice. It will be important in that respect to ensure that an impression is given of joint ownership rather than of one department seeking to dominate the other. We must

CWH 163
avoid the impression that one authority has a greater right to the committees' time or could exercise undue influence in setting the work programme. That would be damaging and should be avoided. It is important that advisory committees retain their independence to advise on matters within their remit.
In practice it is sensible for the administrative lead of any committee to lie with one department or body. I refer to preparing agendas and circulating papers. That is already achievable through the Bill as drafted. The arrangements made to establish a joint committee mentioned in paragraph 8(1) to this schedule could well cover administrative support to the committee. We recognise that the work of a committee is unlikely to divide exactly between the sponsoring authorities. It is likely that one authority with a major interest will shoulder much of the administrative burden. That could change over time, however, and it would be wrong to fix a division of responsibilities that might in time prove not to be appropriate. In those circumstances I hope that the noble Lord might agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for his reply. References to the Liberal Democrat manifesto have been rife this afternoon and we welcome any publicity for what was a fine document! Perhaps, however, the Minister and I should debate the principles of federalism on another occasion. The essence of the matter is, of course, that the principles by which a body is going to be run and established and take its decisions need to be set out in a clear manner. How those decisions are taken in practice is undoubtedly a matter for federal action as regards Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. We believe that the same principles should apply.
The Minister produced his best argument when he addressed the aspect of specialist consumer committees; namely, that in some cases it might not be appropriate to have that balance. They were specifically designed to be specialist consumer committees or specialist producer committees. Therefore it would be inappropriate to seek the balance that I have mentioned. As far as the general regional committees are concerned, there may well be other arguments. At this stage it would be best to consider carefully what the Minister has said and then debate the Liberal Democrat manifesto at a future date. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment Nos. 105 to 110 not moved.]
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [The Agency's functions under other Acts]:
[Amendments Nos. 111 and 111A not moved.]
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 112:
Page 28, line 6, at end insert—
("( ) When making an order under section 42, the Secretary of State must specify the period for which the Agency is empowered to exercise the default powers.")
The noble Baroness said: The Bill amends Section 42 of the Food Safety Act 1990 and empowers the Secretary of State to direct the agency to carry out the enforcement functions of an enforcement authority that has failed to meet its obligations. We suggest that there should be some time limit, that it should not be open-ended and that, if it were so, it would give the agency increasing powers which could be used long term. The amendment would ensure the agency does not carry out these functions indefinitely but for a limited period as specified by the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
Baroness Hayman: Perhaps I may reassure the noble Baroness on the issue that lies behind this amendment while not accepting the amendment itself. The default provisions we are discussing, which will be available to the Secretary of State, are intended for use only in the last resort and where other channels of action have failed. I do not expect them to be exercised by the agency under the authority of the Secretary of State on anything but the rare occasions where there is a serious failure occurring over a period of time which it has not been possible to rectify through the agency's own powers of standard-setting, monitoring, audit and advice.
It may prove further reassuring if I point out that the power may only be exercised in cases where a local authority has failed to discharge a duty, rather than failed to do anything which in the agency's opinion it should have done. Therefore, it is not a matter of what is called in other circumstances "creeping competence". The fact that the Bill enables the Secretary of State to name the agency as the default authority under these provisions does not create any new powers. Rather, the Bill makes a technical change designed to ensure that the powers currently available to Ministers to take default action through their officials can continue to be exercised by the Secretary of State once the relevant officials transfer to the agency.
I would certainly expect the agency, in cases where it might be directed to take over the work of a failing local authority, to do so with discretion and for no longer than is absolutely necessary. It lies at the root of our approach to general food law enforcement that local authorities will retain primary operational responsibility and that their independence of action will, as far as possible, be respected.
Where I am not convinced is to the practicality of Amendment No. 112, which would require a time limit to be applied to any authorisation to exercise default powers. As I have already explained, these powers will be exercised in very exceptional circumstances where a serious lapse has occurred. In such circumstances, I suspect that the time required to resolve the problem is unpredictable by us in this Committee at this time. The consequences of a requirement to set a time limit could well be that it is over-estimated and that a new order might well have to be made to rectify the original limit. I hope I may have given the noble Baroness some reassurance that there are limitations already inherent in this power and that, on that basis and in light of

CWH 165
what I believe would be practical difficulties of putting a specific time limit, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw this amendment.
Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister for her full response. When she said "only in the last resort" I began to think that if my noble friend Lord Mackay were standing here he might well be responding slightly differently following our discussions on the opening amendment this afternoon!
I appreciate that it applies only when a local authority has failed to discharge a duty. To a certain extent I obviously accept that it is difficult to put a time limit on because it might vary, depending on what sort of duty has not been discharged. It was a probing amendment and I am grateful to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6 p.m.
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 113:
Page 28, line 6, at end insert—
("( ) 'The Agency shall recover in full from the food authority the actual costs it has incurred when acting in default.")
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 113 would require the agency to recover its actual costs for acting in default from the enforcement authority which has failed to meet its obligations. During the past two days in Committee we have talked about the vast costs of running the agency. That is the reason behind the amendment. It would provide the local authority with an incentive to monitor the agency's charges and to exert pressure on it for them to be kept as low as possible. Again, in Committee earlier we talked about the fact that in some instances, particular the Meat Hygiene Service, charges are made and therefore anything that helps to keep the costs within reason is the purpose behind my amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Hayman: I understand the motivation behind the amendment as explained by the noble Baroness. The amendment would, in effect, require the agency to recover from the failing authority all of the costs of carrying out default action and not give the authority control over the agency's expenditure.
Although I sympathise with the idea that an authority which has failed to discharge its duties to the consumer should be required to meet the costs of that failure, especially in the serious circumstances that I described when speaking to Amendment No. 112, as a general rule the taxpayer as a whole should not pay for the failings of the local authority. However, I do not believe that it would necessarily be appropriate in every case. There may, for example, be instances in which a problem of a very unusual nature had occurred outside the bounds of a local authority's normal enforcement responsibility. That problem might well have placed some increasingly unmanageable burden on the local authority in question, even though it might have been acting in good faith.
CWH 166
In those circumstances, therefore, I believe that the agency might well wish to take a sympathetic view and waive some or all of the costs arising from a default action. I suggest that the power to recover costs—and that power does exist—lies with the agency and it can do it. The provision as it stands at the moment means that the agency does not have to recover the full costs in every case. That would be the general rule, but we believe that leaving some flexibility for what would be in any case very unusual circumstances and might be unusual in the sense of putting an overwhelming burden on the particular local authority, would be a sensible course of action. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister for her response. I felt that she understood the problem but did not wish to accept my amendment, which asks for full costs. I will certainly take it away and give it some thought and we may have an opportunity to discuss the implied desire behind it, even if the wording is perhaps too stringent for the Committee at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 114:
Page 28, line 6, at end insert—
("Section 45 (regulations as to charges)
No regulations to which this section applies shall be made (whether alone or with other regulations) by or in connection with the Agency unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.")
The noble Baroness said: The effect of this amendment would be to increase the level of Parliamentary scrutiny of the agency's charges, by making the Secretary of State's regulations requiring or authorising charges subject to the affirmative procedure in both Houses of Parliament. I beg to move.
Baroness Hayman: I understand the concerns about charging, which have been behind several of the amendments and discussions we have had in Committee. The requirement for orders to be made under Section 45 of the 1990 Act, to be subject to negative resolution as they stand at the moment, is consistent with similar general charging powers in other legislation. Parliament has decided on numerous occasions that the negative resolution procedure is appropriate in this kind of case.
The purpose of these powers is to provide for the cost of carrying out enforcement duties to be recoverable from those receiving an enforcement service. It is therefore limited to enforcement work and could not be used, for example, to finance any of the

CWH 167
wider activities of the agency such as its developing policy or providing advice. Indeed, it is a principle of EU law that charges linked to the exercise of a statutory function may recover no more than the cost of carrying out that function, so there is a stricture there. Where regulations make charges with additional costs loaded on, then express authority under the terms of the Finance Act 1997 already calls for the affirmative resolution procedure to be applied.
Since the powers in section of the 1990 Act do not provide for additional costs to be recovered over and above those arising from enforcement, the affirmative resolution convention is not relevant. If any Members of this House or another place have particular concerns about a particular charging regulation, then the negative resolution procedures that apply provide an opportunity to pray against the SI. I would, however, observe that while this has happened, there have been numerous occasions on which regulations made under section 45 have not been thought necessary to be the subject of such a debate. I hope, therefore, that Members of the Committee will agree that there is no need to alter the provisions for the negative procedure as set out in the Bill.
Baroness Byford: I again thank the Minister for her response. It is interesting that over these past three days of debate we have found that, in many instances, what we are trying to do in this Bill actually comes into conflict with EU law. Unless I have misunderstood what the Minister just said—I give way.
Baroness Hayman: I did not say that it came into conflict with EU law but that EU law ensures that national governments cannot behave improperly in terms of recovering more than the cost of a particular element of regulation that is, itself, governed by EU law. The affirmative resolution procedure that the noble Baroness seeks to achieve would, in fact, be invoked in those circumstances. It is a failsafe mechanism.
Baroness Byford: I thank the noble Baroness for that clarification. With those few words, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman moved Amendment No. 115:
Page 28, line 10. at end insert—
("PART IA

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the Food Standards Bill

  FUNCTIONS UNDER THE 1991 ORDER
  7A. This Part has effect for conferring functions under the 1991 Order on the Agency (and references to Articles are to Articles of the 1991 Order).
  Article 12 (emergency control orders)
  7B. The Agency may grant consent under paragraph (3), and give directions under paragraph (5), of Article 12.
  Article 26 (enforcement)
  7C. The Agency—

  (a) may be directed to discharge duties of district councils under Article 26(2);

  CWH 168

  (b) may be specified as an authority to enforce and execute regulations or orders in pursuance of Article 26(3); and

  (c) may take over the conduct of proceedings mentioned in Article 26(4) either when directed to do so by the Department of Health and Social Services for Northern Ireland or with the consent of the district council which instituted them.

  Article 39 (codes of practice)
  7D. —(1) The Agency may, after consulting the Department of Health and Social Services for Northern Ireland—

  (a) give directions to district councils under Article 39(2)(b) as to steps to be taken in order to comply with codes of practice under Article 39; and

  (b) enforce any such directions.

  (2) The Agency may undertake consultation with representative organisations regarding proposals for codes of practice under Article 39.
  Article 40 (information from district councils)
  7E. The Agency may exercise the power to require returns or other information from district councils under Article 40.
  Article 41 (default powers)
  7F. The Agency may be empowered by an order under Article 41 to discharge any duty of a district council.
  Article 47 (regulations and orders)
  7G. The Agency may undertake consultation with representative organisations required by Article 47 regarding proposals for regulations or orders under the 1991 Order.")
  The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 115, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 122, 123, 127, 129 and 130. These are technical amendments. They make changes to Northern Ireland legislation to parallel proposed amendments to existing GB legislation, which are already contained in the schedules to the Bill. In particular, the Food Safety Northern Ireland Order 1991 will be amended to parallel amendments to the Food Safety Act 1990 and the Genetically Modified Organisms Northern Ireland Order 1991 to effect changes to the Environmental Protection Act 1990. These amendments will ensure that there is a consistent framework of legislation in place across the United Kingdom when the agency is established, whether or not the devolution settlement in Northern Ireland is fully in place. I commend the amendments to the Committee. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman moved Amendment No. 116:
  Page 28, line 38, leave out ("The Ministers") and insert ("A licensing authority").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman moved Amendment No. 117:
  Page 28, line 39, leave out ("they contemplate") and insert ("the authority contemplates").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 118 not moved.]
  Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman moved Amendment No. 119:
  Page 28, line 42, leave out ("them") and insert ("the authority").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendments Nos. 120 and 121 not moved.]
  Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman moved Amendment No. 122:
  Page 30, line 23, at end insert—
  ("Genetically Modified Organisms (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 (S.L 1991/1714 (N.I. 19))
  11A. In Article 5(7) and Article 8(7) of the Genetically Modified Organisms (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 (grant of exemptions) after the word "Department" there shall be inserted the words ", or by the Department and the Food Standards Agency acting jointly,".
  11B.—(1) For Article 22 of that Order (exercise of certain functions relating to genetically modified organisms jointly by the Department of the Environment and the Department of Agriculture) there shall be substituted the following Article—
  "Mode of exercise of certain functions
  22. —4(1) Any power of the Department to make regulations under this Order (other than the power conferred by Article 10) is exercisable, where the regulations to be made relate to any matter with which the Department of Agriculture is concerned, by the Department and the Department of Agriculture acting jointly.
  (2) Any function of the Department under this Order (other than a power to make regulations) is exercisable, where the function is to be exercised in relation to a matter with which the Department of Agriculture is concerned, by the Department and the Department of Agriculture acting jointly (but subject to paragraph (3)).
  (3) Any function of the Department under Articles 5(8) and 7 is exercisable, where the function is to be exercised in relation to a matter with which the Food Standards Agency is concerned—

  (a) if it is a matter with which the Department of Agriculture is also concerned, by the Department, the Department of Agriculture and the Food Standards Agency acting jointly;

  (b) otherwise, by the Department and the Food Standards Agency acting jointly.

  (4) Accordingly, references in this Order to the Department shall, where paragraph (1), (2) or (3) applies, be treated as references to the authorities in question acting jointly.
  (5) The Food Standards Agency shall be consulted before—

  (a) any regulations are made under this Order, other than under Article 10, or

  (b) any consent is granted or varied.

  (6) The reference in Article 10 to expenditure of the Department in discharging functions under this Order in relation to consents shall be taken to include a reference to the corresponding expenditure of the Department of Agriculture in discharging those functions jointly with the Department.
  (7) The validity of anything purporting to be done in pursuance of the exercise of a function of the Department under this Order shall not be affected by any question whether that thing fell, by virtue of this Article, to be done jointly with the Department of Agriculture or the Food Standards Agency (or both)."
  (2) In consequence of sub-paragraph (1), in the definition of "the Department" in Article 2(2) of that Order, after the word "means" there shall be inserted the words "(subject to Article 22)"").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
  Schedule 4 agreed to.
  Schedule 5 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
  Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman moved Amendment No. 123:
  Page 32, line 32, at end insert—
  ("Agricultural Returns Act (Northern Ireland) 1939 (c. 35) (N.I.)
  In section 1(4) of the Agricultural Returns Act (Northern Ireland) 1939 (restriction on disclosure of returns), after paragraph (e) there shall be added the following paragraph—

  "(f) to the Food Standards Agency for purposes connected with the carrying out of any of its functions."").

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman moved Amendment No. 124:
  Page 32, line 38, at end insert—
  ("Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967
  In Schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 (departments etc subject to investigation) the following entry shall be inserted in the appropriate place—
  "Food Standards Agency."").
  The noble Baroness said: When we discussed the appeals procedures that would be available in various circumstances to those who were aggrieved by actions of the agency, I said that the agency would be subject to the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, which has always been the intention in the various processes of consultation around this Bill. This amendment makes that fact absolutely clear by adding the agency to the list of bodies covered by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. Given our debates, this is no doubt something that the Committee would wish to endorse and I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman moved Amendment No. 125:
  Page 33, line 17, leave out sub-paragraphs (2) to (5) and insert. —
  ("(2) In section 1(2) (emergency orders: definition of "designating authority") after "Food" there shall be inserted the words "and the Secretary of State or either of them".
  This paragraph shall come into force on the passing of this Act.
  (3) In section 1(2) as so amended, for the words from "the Minister" to "them" there shall be substituted the words "the Secretary of State".
  (4) In section 2 (powers of designating authority when emergency order is made)—

  (a) in subsection (1)—

  (i) after the words "A designating authority" there shall be inserted the words "or the Food Standards Agency"; and

  (ii) for the words "the designating authority" there shall be substituted the words "the authority giving the consent";

  (b) in subsection (3)—

  (i) after the words "A designating authority" there shall be inserted the words "or the Food Standards Agency";

  (ii) in paragraph (a), for the words "the designating authority" (in both places) there shall be substituted the words "the authority giving the directions"; and

  )(iii) in paragraph (b), after the words "the designating authority' there shall be inserted the words "or the Agency (as the case may be)"; and

  CWH 171

  (c) in subsections (5) and (6)—

  (i) after the words "a designating authority" there shall be inserted the words "or the Food Standards Agency";

  (ii) for the words "the designating authority" (in the first place it appears) there shall be substituted the words "the authority taking that action"; and

  (iii) for the words "the designating authority" (in the second place it appears) there shall be substituted the words "that authority".").

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman moved Amendment No. 126:
  Page 33, line 42, leave out from ("Ireland),") to end of line 44 and insert ("in subsection (2) for paragraph (a) there shall be substituted the following paragraphs—

  "(a) in Part I for any reference to the Secretary of State there is substituted a reference to the Department of Health and Social Services for Northern Ireland;

  (aa) subject to paragraphs (ab) and (b) below, in Part III for any reference to the Ministers or either of them there is substituted a reference to the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland;

  (ab) subject to paragraph (b) below, in section 16 for any reference to the Ministers or either of them there is substituted a reference to the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland and the Department of Health and Social Services for Northern Ireland acting jointly;".").

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman moved Amendment No. 127:
  Page 37, line 5, at end insert —
  ("Food Safety (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 (S.I 1991/762 (N.I. 7))
  23A. The Food Safety (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 shall be amended as follows.
  23B. In the following provisions—

  Article 8(8)

  Article 11(10)

  Article 12(1)

  Article 15(1)(f) and (4)

  Article 16(1) and (2)

  Article 17(2)(a)

  Article 18(2)

  Article 39(1), (2), (3) and (4)

  Article 41(1), (2) and (3)

  Article 44(2)

  Article 47(1), (2) and (3)

  Article 51(2),

  for the words "the Department concerned" or "that Department" there shall be substituted the words "the Department".
  23C. In the following provisions—

  Article 8(7) and (9)(b)

  Article 10(5) to (7)

  Article 11(5) to (10)

  Article 18(1)

  Article 22

  Article 33(1)(b)

  Article 37(1)

  Article 42(2)(b)

  Article 44(1) and (3)

  Article 45

  CWH 172

  Article 49(2)

  Schedule 1,

  after the words "or, as the case may be," there shall be inserted the words "the Food Standards Agency or".
  23D. In Article 2(2) (interpretation)—

  (a) in the definition of "authorised officer"—

  (i) after paragraph (b) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—

  "(bb) in the case of functions conferred on the Food Standards Agency, a person who is generally or is specially authorised in writing by the Food Standards Agency for the purposes of this Order;"; and.

  (ii) in paragraph (c), for the words "the Department concerned" in both places where they occur there shall be substituted the words "the Department, the Department of Agriculture or the Food Standards Agency";

  (b) in the definitions of "order" and "regulations" for the words "the Department concerned" there shall be substituted the words "the Department".

  23E. —(1) Article 12 (emergency control orders) shall be amended as follows.
  (2) In paragraph (3), for the words "The Department concerned" there shall be substituted the words "The Department", after those words there shall be inserted the words "or the Food Standards Agency" and for the words "that Department" there shall be substituted the words "the authority giving the consent".
  (3) In paragraph (5), for the words "The Department concerned" there shall be substituted the words "The Department", after those words there shall be inserted the words "or the Food Standards Agency" and for the words "that Department" in each place where they occur there shall be substituted the words "the authority giving the directions".
  (4) In paragraph (7), for the words "The Department concerned" there shall be substituted the words "The Department", after those words there shall be inserted the words "or the Food Standards Agency" and for the words "that Department" in both places where they occur there shall be substituted the words "that authority".
  23F.Article 24 (orders for facilitating the exercise of functions) shall cease to have effect.
  23G. In Article 25 (regulations and orders: supplementary provisions), in paragraph (2)(e), after the words "district council" there shall be inserted the words ", the Food Standards Agency".
  23H. —(1) Article 26 (enforcement) shall be amended as follows.
  (2) In paragraph (1), for the words "paragraph (1A)" there shall be substituted the words "paragraphs (1A) and (1B)".
  (3) After paragraph (1A) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
  "(1B) The Food Standards Agency shall enforce and execute such provisions of this Order as may be specified by order.".
  (4) In paragraph (2) —

  (a) for the words "Department concerned" there shall be substituted the word "Department"; and

  (b) for the words "that Department" in both places where they occur there shall be substituted the words "the Department, the Department of Agriculture or the Food Standards Agency".

  (5) After paragraph (3) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
  "(3A) Regulations or orders under paragraph (3) may specify the Food Standards Agency as an authority to enforce and execute them and references in that paragraph to any authority concerned include references to the Food Standards Agency.".
  (6) In paragraph (4)—

  (a) for the words "Department concerned" there shall be substituted the word "Department" and

  (b) after the words "district council" there shall be inserted the words "or may direct the Food Standards Agency to do so".

  (7) After paragraph (4) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
  "(4A) The Food Standards Agency may take over the conduct of any such proceedings but (unless the Agency has been directed to do so under paragraph (4)) only with the consent of the district council which instituted them.".
  23I. In Article 27 (appointment of public and other analysts), paragraph (6)(a) shall cease to have effect.
  23J. (1) Article 31 (analysis, etc. of samples by authorised officer of the Department of Agriculture) shall be amended as follows
  (2) After paragraph (1) there shall be inserted the following paragraph —

  "(1A) An authorised officer of the Food Standards Agency who has procured a sample under Article 29 may —

  (a) if he considers that the sample should be analysed by a public analyst or a food analyst, submit it to be so analysed;

  (b) if he considers that the sample should be examined by a food examiner, submit it to be so examined,

  and for the purposes of this paragraph references in Article 27(1) and (6) to functions conferred on district councils or to the functions of the Department of Agriculture include references to functions of the Food Standards Agency.";
  (3) In paragraph (2), after the words "paragraph (1)" (in the first place they occur) there shall be inserted the words "or (1A)".
  (4) In paragraph (3)—

  (a) in the definition of "the requisite qualifications", for the words "Department of Agriculture" there shall be substituted the word "Department"; and

  (b) in the definition of "sample", after the words "Department of Agriculture" there shall be inserted the words "or the Food Standards Agency".")

  23K. —(1) Article 39 (codes of practice) shall be amended as follows.
  (2) After paragraph (1) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
  "(1A) The Food Standards Agency may, after consulting the Department, give a district council a direction requiring the council to take any specified steps in order to comply with a code under this Article.".
  (3) In paragraph (2)(b) for the words from "by" to "and" there shall be substituted the words "under this Article and".
  (4) In paragraph (3), for the words "paragraph (2)(b)" and "the Department concerned" ("the Department" if the amendment in paragraph 23B has been made) there shall be substituted respectively the words "paragraph (1A)" and "the Food Standards Agency".
  (5) After paragraph (3) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
  "(3A) The Food Standards Agency shall consult the Department before making an application under paragraph (3)."
  (6) In paragraph (4), the words after "shall" shall be renumbered as sub-paragraph (a) and at the end there shall be added the words "; and
  (b) have regard to any relevant advice given by the Food Standards Agency".
  (7) After paragraph (4) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
  "(4A) If it appears to the Department that the Food Standards Agency has undertaken any consultation with an organisation that the Department is required to consult under paragraph (4), the Department may treat that consultation as being as effective for the purposes of that paragraph as if undertaken by the Department.".
  23L. In Article 40 (power to require returns), after the word "Department" in each place where it occurs there shall be inserted the words "or the Food Standards Agency".
  23M. In Article 41 (default powers), in paragraph (1), after the word "empower" there shall be inserted the words "die Food Standards Agency or".
  23N. In Article 44 (power to impose charges for things done by district councils or Department of Agriculture under the Order), in paragraph (1) —

  (a) after the word "done" there shall be inserted the words "or to be done"; and

  (b) after the words "those councils" there shall be inserted the words "or the Food Standards Agency".

  23O. In Article 47 (regulations and orders), after paragraph (3) there shall be inserted the following paragraphs—
  "(3A) Before making any regulations or order under this Order, the Department shall have regard to any relevant advice given by the Food Standards Agency.
  (3B) If it appears to the Department that the Food Standards Agency has undertaken any consultation with an organisation that the Department is required to consult under paragraph (3), the Department may treat that consultation as being as effective for the purposes of that paragraph as if undertaken by the Department.".
  23P. (1) Schedule 1 (provisions which may be included in regulations relating to food safety or consumer protection) shall be amended as follows.
  (2) In paragraph 2(2), after the words "district councils" there shall be inserted the words "or the Food Standards Agency".
  (3) In paragraph 3(2), after the words -Department of Agriculture" and "Department" (in each place) there shall be inserted the words "or the Food Standards Agency".
  (4) After paragraph 6 there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
  "Production of food sources
  6A. Provision for prohibiting or regulating

  (a) the possession, sale or offer, exposure or advertisement for sale of any specified substance, or any substance of any specified class, with a view to its use in connection with the production of any food source;

  (b) the use of any specified substance, or any substance of any specified class, in connection with the production of any food source;

  (c) the carrying out of any activity in connection with, or in a manner likely to affect, the production of any food source.".

  (5) In paragraph 7(2), after the word "falls" there shall be inserted the words "(or is likely to fall)".
  23Q.—(1) Paragraph 5 of Schedule 3 (saving from repeal of Article 17 of the Food (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 for certain existing bylaws) shall cease to have effect.
  (2) Accordingly any bylaws which were made (or which have effect as if made) under that Article and which have continued in force by virtue of that paragraph are revoked.").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
  Schedule 6 [Repeals]
  Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman moved Amendment No. 128:
  page 38, leave out lines 18 and 19
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman moved Amendment No. 129:
  Page 38, line 37, at end insert—

  ("S.I. 1991/762 (N.I. 7).

  The Food Safety (Northern Ireland) Order 1991.

  In Article 2(2), the definition of "the Department concerned". Article 24.

  In Article 25(3), the words "or an order under Article 24" and in both places where they occur the words "or order". Article 27(6)(a).

  In Schedule 3, paragraph 5.")

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman moved Amendment No. 130
  Page 39 line 4, at end insert—

  ("S.I. 1996/1633 (N.I.

  The Food Safety

  Article 3(1)(a).

  12).

  (Amendment)

  Article 7(2)(b)(i).

  (Northern Ireland)

  Articles 8 and 9.")

  Order 1996.

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
  Title agreed to.
  Bill reported with amendments.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo): That concludes the Committee's proceedings on the Bill.
  The Committee adjourned at fourteen minutes past six o'clock.

  Rastafari
  Rastafari
  Firefighters' Conditions of Service
  Firefighters' Conditions of Service
  Greater London Authority Elections
  Greater London Authority Elections
  Economic and Finance Council of Ministers, 8 October
  Economic and Finance Council of Ministers, 8 October