—Took the Oath.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

:My Lords, the Government are committed to ensuring that the families of young offenders take responsibility for their behaviour. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 introduced the parenting order, which is currently being piloted. For young offenders, this Session's Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill introduces the referral order. That will involve them and their families attending a youth offender panel to work together to devise a programme to prevent further offending behaviour.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Will he confirm that experience so far indicates that it is useful to involve the family in plans for the nature of custody of a young offender and in the plans for his release, given that they have to "pick up the pieces" afterwards? I have two specific questions. Are the Government thinking of moving that same principle up the age scale to include young adult offenders? On a smaller, practical point, has the Minister resolved the question of who should pay for transport to and from prison for that purpose?

:My Lords. I unreservedly endorse the noble Lord's first proposition. All informed research—and I pay tribute to the Prison Reform Trust, of which he is the distinguished patron—indicates that the road to criminal behaviour starts at a very early age for most delinquent offenders, and that the sooner we assist them, the better. I wish to keep an open mind on taking the scale up in terms of age. We are presently doing a degree of work in that connection with welfare-to-work schemes in prison for 18 to 25 year-olds. That can involve family contact. In respect of paying for transport to and from prison, in the context of the Crime and Disorder Act and youth offender panels, such expenditure would not be covered. There are schemes for assisting family visits to prisons. They are reasonably well publicised, not least by the Prison Reform Trust.

:My Lords, I thank my noble friend for the steps that the Government are taking on this matter. Does he accept that young offenders' institutions really amount to prison for children and young people? Does he agree that it is better, where possible, for young people to be dealt with and, where necessary, to make recompense for their offences, outside institutions? Should not the community accept responsibility wherever possible?

My Lords, I accept that if at all possible, especially in the case of young offenders, one seeks restorative justice whereby first-time offenders in particular have to make restoration to the victim, achieve reintegration into the community and, fundamentally, take responsibility for the consequences of their own behaviour. Unfortunately, it will be necessary for some to be trained in closed circumstances. Huntercombe young offenders' institution, for example, is doing remarkable pioneering work—and with the assistance of generous donations from firms in the private sector such as Nissan and Kwikfit. Good work is being done; however, I agree that, if at all possible, we should seek to nip offending in the bud at an earlier stage.

My Lords, is the Minister aware of research in the United States indicating that prisoners without family support are twice as likely, or even six times more likely, to offend than those who have family support? Is that not also the case with juvenile offenders? Most young offenders who come before the courts in this country are from broken families. Will the Government ensure that the central part of the new juvenile regimes that have been established will provide for the thorough involvement of the family?

:My Lords, I am happy to agree with the theme identified by the noble Lord. The indicators for crime are known. They are: poor or broken family circumstances; families which have themselves been engaged in criminal activities; lack of work; and alcohol and drug abuse. It is important to view these matters on a wide spectrum. The work that my right honourable friend Mr Blunkett is doing in the education context is also of fundamental importance. Both the measures to which I referred—the 1998 Act and the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill—put into effect the themes identified by the noble Lord.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the experience of restorative justice schemes, such as that run by the Thames Valley police force, reveals that the involvement of the family in identifying the criminality and the wrongness of the deeds of the young creates a framework in which they are better able to avoid criminality in the future? Would the incorporation of that process in sentencing for "custodiable" offences reduce the number of sentences taking a custodial form, thus reducing the probability of future offending by those young people?

My Lords, I absolutely agree. I believe that the work done on the Thames Valley pilot scheme is first rate. It is based on the principles of restorative justice of which I spoke a moment or two ago. We believe that these measures assist families, some of whom have neither inner resources nor outward help. I believe that they are key to the problems with which we are wrestling; namely, the reduction of crime particularly among young offenders.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the facilities for family visiting at some young offenders' institutions are less than adequate? Can the Minister say whether the criticisms made by the inspectorate are now being addressed?

My Lords, in my experience, provision for family visits is patchy and variable. That should not be tolerated. The work that the chief inspector does is extremely helpful in pointing out deficiencies. But I stress, as I did with regard to Huntercombe a few moments ago, that some of the work being done is extremely effective and encouraging.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

:My Lords, we have commissioned guidance to enable mental health professionals to provide the most effective treatment for people with schizophrenia. As part of the new money that we are making available for mental health in 1999–2000, we have allocated an extra £2.5 million for the new anti-psychotic medications.

:My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and action. A recent survey shows that rationing of these medicines is widespread. Does the Minister agree that greater account should now be taken of the long-term savings through fewer hospital admissions because of these drugs?

:My Lords, I certainly agree with the noble Lord that the cost-effectiveness of treatment should be looked at in the round rather than simply comparing the cost of one drug as against another. That is why we have commissioned the British Psychological Society and the Royal College of Psychiatrists to produce guidelines, which will be published later this year, on effective treatment for schizophrenia that cover both drug and non-drug treatment. I hope that that will be one of the driving forces to challenge unacceptable variations in access to care.

My Lords, the Department of Health's recent paper Safer Services on homicides and suicides by those with mental illness made clear how important was the availability of so-called atypical drugs to ensure compliance. Can the Minister say specifically what action the department is taking in that respect?

My Lords, the major new report on suicide and homicide by psychiatric patients is very important and highlights changes that could improve the safety of mental health care. There is often a perception that suicide and homicide by people with mental illness cannot be either predicted or prevented. I believe that the report of Professor Appleby in particular shows that there are lessons to learn and steps to be taken to help reduce those tragic incidents. I hope that the national service framework for mental health will allow us to ensure that everyone is working on accredited guidelines and understands the effective treatments in this area.

:My Lords, that leads me very nicely to my question. Will the late lamented CHIMP, now re-christened CHIM (the Commission for Health Improvement)—because "CHIMP" sounded a bit silly—be studying schizophrenia treatments of this kind, and will the Government encourage them?

:My Lords, the role of the commission will be to monitor the performance of health service providers in providing high quality care. One of the matters that it will look at is the guidelines that are being implemented and the adherence to accredited advice. One role for the commission is to look at the national service framework and to monitor, through clinical governance and inspections, how that is being implemented. There is also a role for the National Institute for Clinical Excellence in looking in particular at the cost-effectiveness and clinical effectiveness of the new treatments as they come on stream.

:My Lords, while I warmly welcome what the Minister has said about the prospect of a new national framework for guidance, which I believe can make an enormous difference, is she aware that 91 per cent of psychiatrists would like to prescribe the new atypical drugs but are virtually rationed, and that to treat all new patients with them would increase the total bill for mental health medication by only 1 per cent?

:My Lords, I am aware of considerable support among the mental health professional community, although we should not regard this as a panacea. The new anti-psychotics are very effective in some patients but not necessarily more effective than standard treatment nor are they necessarily without side effects compared with present treatments. I return to the evidence base on which funding decisions should be taken. That is why we believe that the guidelines, which we hope will be published later this year, will be very important in ensuring that we all work from a common set of data.

:My Lords, is not one of the lessons to be learned that the side effects of the drugs prescribed are a major cause of the problem to which the report refers? Does the Minister accept that there is a growing interest among users of mental health services in alternative and complementary methods of treating mental illness symptoms, in particular as regards nutrition? Does she agree that that may provide the opportunity for the cost savings which the questioner seeks?

Perhaps I may recommend that the Minister reads the article, Complementary therapies, in the 10th June issue of Mental Health Care, Volume 2.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that suggestion; I shall look at the article.

The noble Lord is right to highlight that we cannot consider individual issues in totally self-contained compartments. The noble Lord, Lord Williamson, made that point. A range of treatments may be effective. That is why we specifically asked for the guidelines to consider non-drug as well as drug treatments

:My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that when the range of anti-psychotic treatments is examined by the national institute for clinical excellence the issue of affordability of newer types of drugs, as distinct from their clinical or cost effectiveness, will play no part whatever in its deliberations?

:My Lords, we have not yet announced the programme of work for the national institute for clinical excellence. I should not like to pre-empt that. We have stated clearly that that organisation will look to provide advice based on the issues of cost effectiveness and clinical effectiveness.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

:My Lords, large retail premises are no different from any other mixed dental practice. The General Dental Council is responsible for both the professional conduct and fitness to practise of all dentists in the United Kingdom. Additionally, health authorities and the Dental Reference Service of the Dental Practice Board are responsible for the maintenance of standards of treatment for consumers within NHS dentistry.

:My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. As an elected member of the General Dental Council I discovered that its responsibility is to issue the educational curriculum and to pick up problems which have reached an impossible point, perhaps then having to take someone off the dental register. Does the Minister believe that there is a great gap between those two areas? Does she agree that an independent assessment system should be available—either run privately or provided by the Government at a cost? Many individuals now have private dentistry treatment either because they cannot obtain such treatment under the National Health Service or because they choose to do so. They should have some means of being assessed independently. Few patients have any idea technically whether they are being treated well, badly or indifferently.

:My Lords, the noble Baroness pinpoints an important issue. As are several other regulatory bodies, the General Dental Council is concerned that its powers and abilities are not as wide or sensitive as it would wish. It has proposed a number of amendments to the Dentists Act, including proposals for a private complaints procedure, which I think would be helpful, and a performance review scheme. That could be achieved through the order-making power to strengthen professional self-regulation in the Health Bill, which returns to your Lordships' House this week. There are opportunities for improvement there.

We shall shortly issue a consultation document on regulating private and voluntary healthcare. We shall seek views on whether the current exemptions from regulatory arrangements, including exemption for premises primarily used by dentists for treatment, should continue. I think that there are opportunities for improvement in this area.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that the issue is being overshadowed by the fact that the dental service is rapidly becoming a two-tier service under the present national health arrangements? Some attention will have to be given to that fact. Hard choices are now having to be made by people who can least afford to make them.

My Lords, my noble friend is right to point out that we inherited a situation which was the result of the promises of the former government, who did not invest in dentistry and allowed the rundown of dental services. That led to the inequalities and difficulties which are highlighted in some parts of the country. We have taken positive and successful action to tackle some of the worst areas by investing in dentistry and through personal dental services pilots. Twenty-four new pilots were announced as part of the Government's vision of a more flexible, accessible and convenient health service.

However, there is a great deal to do here. It would be wrong to suggest that we can put the matter right overnight. I hope that the strategy which we shall publish later this year will take us further along that road.

:My Lords, the Minister referred to drop-in centres that were announced recently. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, referred to retail developments. Are not these taking place in somewhat of a vacuum? The Minister referred to the strategy document being published later this year. The original intention to have a strategy was referred to in April 1998. Is it not high time that the strategy paper was published—and very soon?

My Lords, I hope that we shall publish it before too long. But the most important aspect is to get the strategy right. We need to ensure that that strategy reduces inequalities in oral health status, improves access to NHS dental services, builds on the success of investing in dentistry and personal dental services, guarantees high quality services, and ensures that all members of the dental team can make the fullest contribution to improving services for patients. The major job is to get the strategy right, if we are to cover all those areas effectively. As I have said, I hope that the document will be published later this year.

:My Lords, is the Minister aware that according to the Office for National Statistics survey of 1997, 96 per cent of all non-disabled children attended for an annual oral check while only 72 per cent of children with a learning disability did likewise? Similar figures apply to adults with and without learning disability. What safeguards and standards are being set for the new-style clinics in regard to the reception, treatment and encouragement to attend of people with a learning disability, both adults and children?

:My Lords, the noble Lord highlights that in our strategy we need to make sure that we reduce some of the inequalities in oral health status which apply to different groups in the population, including the learning disabled, and in different areas of the country. We have to look overall at access to dental services from different groups which have particular difficulty. Community dental services in some parts have done good work in that field. I shall make sure that the points the noble Lord raises today are taken into account in consideration of the issue.

:My Lords, does the Minister agree that, welcome though a complaints procedure may be—I am sure that it would be widely welcomed in consumer quarters—it is important that anyone involved in such proceedings should be expert but completely independent so that the advice he or she gives would give the additional help implied; and that, above all, the procedures should be easily available to those who may have to use them?

:My Lords, the noble Baroness is right. The procedures should be transparent and independent.

:My Lords, regardless of the position that the Government state they inherited, is the Minister aware that the number of adults registered with a dentist in the UK was 22.3 million in December 1997? However, the figure had fallen to 19.7 million by December 1998, a reduction of 2.5 million? What are the Government doing to make NHS dentistry more available to the many people who are unable to find an NHS dentist?

:My Lords, my noble friend suggests I say that we should not and would not have started from here. The problem created by the withdrawal from NHS dentistry will take time to turn around. However, we have received 282 bids for funding from investment in dentistry, which have been approved to the value of more than £8 million. That will enable more than 650,000 new patients to receive NHS care. However, some areas of the country have been complete deserts for NHS dentistry for some time and it will take some time to build them up and stop that being the case.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

:My Lords, NATO military action against the FRY was justifiable as an exceptional measure on the grounds of overwhelming humanitarian necessity. It was never part of NATO's agenda to attack civilian targets, nor to wear down the civilian population.

:My Lords, does my noble friend remember the saying of Archbishop Tutu: "If we can get rid of apartheid we can also get rid of war"? Is it not time, in this age of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear and otherwise, to decide that war has become too dangerous to start and that all disputes with nations and within nations must be settled by other means?

:My Lords, I am sure that everyone in the House wishes that it had not been necessary to take the military action that we had to take. But we have to remember that our quarrel was not with the people of Serbia, not with those who have suffered inadvertently in this terrible military action, but with the barbaric policies of President Milosevic. I repeat to the noble Lord that it has never been part of our objective to attack civilians. All our attacks were limited to military objectives as defined under international humanitarian law.

I reiterate to the noble Lord, as I have done previously in your Lordships' House, that of course we regret civilian casualties and we have made every effort to avoid them.

:My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether the Security Council has yet passed the resolution which will legitimise our performance and make an honest woman of us all?

:My Lords, I am sorry, but I did not catch the end of the noble Earl's question. The Security Council has certainly passed a resolution, but he asked me something specific about it.

:My Lords, we understood from a Statement made last week that the Security Council resolution to be passed would embrace us all and give an overdue legitimacy to our action and—as I put it in a simple phrase—make an honest woman of us all.

:My Lords, I do not believe that we needed a Security Council resolution to make an honest woman of us all. as the noble Earl puts it. But he is right in saying that a Security Council resolution was passed last week. There was one abstention from China. We are all delighted that we were able to reach that degree of unanimity, albeit without China, on the Security Council.

:My Lords, in my view, the Government deserve great credit for their actions in Kosovo in the past few weeks, as do our Armed Forces. It is right that that should be put on record. However, my noble friend in answering spoke of the doctrine of overwhelming humanitarian necessity. Will she recognise that if that doctrine is in international law, it has a serious effect on Article 2(7) of the Charter of the United Nations which states that no activity within the borders of an individual state shall be challengable by outside intervention.

I do not seek to argue whether it is right or wrong, but if we are moving into a time when overwhelming humanitarian necessity is a justification for outside intervention, will my noble friend recognise that it has to be done gradually and by agreement? Will Her Majesty's Government therefore take the initiative in, the United Nations to ensure that the doctrine of humanitarian necessity is properly discussed by the international community?

:My Lords, I believe that on a number of occasion:4 in your Lordships' House we have addressed the evolving nature of the legal basis of such action. I stress to my noble friend that every means short of force was taken to avert the situation. Your Lordships will remember the number of times we discussed the matter in June and October last year, when the Rambouillet talks were taking place. So this matter has not come out of the blue; it is something we have had to face up to. We were not alone in our judgment of the legality of what we were doing; 19 allies of NATO took the same view. We do not believe that we in any way offended against the Geneva Convention. We have also discussed that in your Lordships' House. However, I agree with my noble friend that these issues must be discussed openly and we have made a useful beginning in doing that in passing the UNSCR last week.

:My Lords, while fully endorsing the congratulations to the Government and the Armed Forces on their role in Kosovo, and the role of our NATO allies, is the Minister aware that public opinion in some NATO countries has still swallowed Serb propaganda; that the suffering of the Kosovars is the result of NATO's intervention? Can she say what the Government are able to do to correct that impression in other NATO countries and perhaps to some extent in this country?

:My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wright, for his kind words about the Government and the military. I am sure your Lordships will wish to join in his comment about the Armed Forces. I stress that we are not there yet; there is still much to do in Kosovo. The noble Lord said that there is a job to be done in a number of different NATO countries. It is remarkable that we have gone through this period of military action, 19 countries together, with all those countries holding together. We all know that there are differences; we all live in democracies and have a free press. People are entitled to say what they like about what happens, which is different from the case in Kosovo.

However, I suspect that as we go into Kosovo during the next few days we shall see not only more evidence of the dreadful atrocities which took place but shall learn more about what took place. I believe that everything we said about the displacement of people last year, about the 2,000 deaths of innocent Kosovars which took place before the bombing began, will come into focus and people will see that the bombing was a reaction to that and not the cause of it.

:My Lords, at a convenient moment after 4.30 p.m. my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement being made in another place on Kosovo.

:My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.

:My Lords, perhaps I may intervene briefly before the Bill passes from this House. In doing so, I renew my congratulations to my noble and learned friend not only on bringing forward this important law reform, which has been in the wings for more than 100 years, but also on guiding it through your Lordships' House. I hope that the noble and learned Lord can hear what I am saying because a number of noble Lords are now leaving the Chamber and it is a little noisy.

I repeat to my noble and learned friend that this is a good Bill and a good measure to have brought forward. However, I have continued concerns that both the legal profession and the judiciary will have difficulty in construing the Bill, particularly the terms under which a third party takes its benefit.

Perhaps I may briefly remind your Lordships of Clause 1(4) which reads:

"This section does not confer a right on a third party to enforce a term of a contract otherwise than subject to and in accordance with any other relevant terms of the contract".

That will not be difficult for the legal profession and the judiciary if the promisor and the promisee in the contract spell out in detail the terms under which the third party is to take its benefit. It may be that there will be difficulties if, in the contract, the promisor and promisee agree that not only disputes between themselves should be adjudicated by arbitration but also those between themselves and the third party should be adjudicated by arbitration. Here again my noble and learned friend has come to the rescue. He tabled an amendment in response to representations that I made that a third party will be able to use the arbitration clause in a dispute if it so wishes.

However, in other circumstances, when the promisor and the promisee do not set out in the contract the terms under which the third party is to take the benefit, the difficulty will be how and under what terms the third party receives its benefit. I had a solution which I proffered in the form of tabled amendments on Report; but, my noble and learned friend thought that I was going too far. I certainly received no support from any quarter in the House and I had the noble Lord, Lord Renton against me. That was a little disappointing as I have been his apostle on law reform for years and I thought that I was being his apostle in tabling those amendments.

My solution was that unless the contrary was expressed in the contract, the third party should take his benefit under the same terms as existed between the promisor and the promisee in the contract. As I indicated just now, my amendment was rejected. My noble and learned friend felt that I was taking the matter too far and that the amendment would infringe the freedom of contract.

I therefore ask my noble and learned friend if he could give assistance. He has already kindly indicated that he will look afresh at the Explanatory Notes to the Bill and see if they can be expanded. At the moment, as my noble and learned friend knows, they are somewhat bald in the assistance that they give to Clause 1(4). They read as follows:

"Subsection (4) clarifies subsection (1). The teen being enforced should not be construed in isolation from the rest of the contract".

That is somewhat bald. I should be grateful if my noble and learned friend could think of ways in which the Explanatory Notes could be expanded. I am perfectly well aware that concerns have been expressed about the use of explanatory notes. If, for example, an explanatory note was contrary to the terms of a Bill, now a statute, or went further than just giving guiding notes, of course it should have no influence on the courts. However, I believe here it would be of great value in giving guidance to the judiciary, and to the legal profession who are asked to construe these measures, if the guidelines in the Explanatory Notes could be further developed. I should be grateful to have some assistance oil that from my noble and learned friend.

As the Bill now leaves your Lordships' House, perhaps I may ask my noble and learned friend what further plans he has to bring forward other Bills based on Law Commission reports. As he will recall, one of his noble and illustrious predecessors, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, set up the Law Commission. If I remember rightly, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, was its first chairman. The Law Commission has produced a number of reports over the years. However, the number which have been neglected and have not found their way into statutory reform is disappointing. I know that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, expressed that view. My noble and learned friend indicated that he wishes to bring forward more measures based on the recommendations of the Law Commission. I should be grateful, therefore, if he could give some further indication of his plans in that respect.

Finally, perhaps I may personally thank the noble and learned Lord for accepting so many of the amendments that I have tabled. I have never had so many amendments accepted by any government minister, let alone by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I am flattered and extremely grateful to him. I wish the Bill all good speed through the other place and congratulate my noble and learned friend on bringing it forward.

:My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, for his supportive observations and for his contribution during the passage of the Bill, upon which he has just remarked. That certainly led to some important improvements. I should also like to thank other noble Lords who participated in the proceedings, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, the noble Lords, Lord Meston and Lord Renton, and my noble friend Lord Howie of Troon.

Perhaps I was unwise to concede so much to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, because, as a result, I appear not to have satisfied him entirely and perhaps to have whetted his appetite. However, I am grateful for his appreciation for what I agreed to.

The reform effected by the Bill has been widely welcomed. I should take the opportunity to express my gratitude to the Law Commission for the excellence of the report on which the Bill is based. I am grateful to Professor Burrows for his continued assistance during the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House. It is primarily thanks to the Law Commission and to your Lordships that this valuable and well-polished piece of law reform is able to begin its journey to another place.

The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, raised a particular point about the benefits conferred on third parties which third parties will be able to enforce when the Bill passes into law. The principle of the Bill is that third parties have the right to enforce the benefits, to which otherwise they would not be entitled, which the parties to the contract have agreed they should receive. So, the extent of the benefit will depend upon the terms of the contract and, as ever, that will be a matter for the courts, as a court of construction, to determine.

My noble friend asked questions about Law Commission reports generally. First, I believe that we are doing rather well this Session. Two Bills from the Law Commission are going through; that is, this Bill and the Trustee Delegation Bill. No one is more supportive than I am in endeavouring to get upon the statute book as quickly as possible Law Commission reports and draft Bills which are plainly beneficial and uncontroversial. However, it is very often asserted of Law Commission reports that they are not controversial when your Lordships' House disagrees Typical areas in which the Law Commission has been very busy in times past and no doubt will be busy in the future, are family law, divorce law and the criminal law Quite frankly it can be asserted as often as those who support the proposition choose that what they propose is uncontroversial. Your Lordships will not find it uncontroversial; your Lordships will. find it highly controversial and such legislation has to take its place in the competition for scarce parliamentary time.

However, I am endeavouring to take certain initiatives and the Law Commission's recent practice of producing a policy paper in advance of the final report is greatly welcomed because it enables the Government better to plan ahead. I am also seeking to give a new priority to establish, through discussion between government departments, priorities in relation to areas in which Law Commission work could more usefully be focused; in particular, areas where the Government would be likely to desire to legislate.

:My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

moved Amendment No. 1:

:The noble Baroness stole my line about "bangs" and "whimpers" which we shall no doubt experience as the Bill progresses. There is nothing sinister about the wording. The term "imposed" is quite frequently used in legislation. It reflects the fact that the word "functions" includes powers and duties. It is common as a matter of drafting to refer to "conferring" powers and "imposing" duties. For example, the same wording was used without any great controversy in the Government of Wales Act in respect of the functions of the National Assembly for Wales. In short, it means that the Assembly will have the functions that Parliament decides from time to time that it should have.

I understand the noble Baroness's anxiety that governments should consult. No doubt this consultative and inclusive government will always consult on such matters. Nevertheless, at the end of the day, for this and for future governments, it is a matter for Parliament what duties shall be undertaken by local authorities, including the Greater London Authority. How those duties are imposed will therefore reflect the intentions of the government and Parliament at the time, but no doubt from time to time Parliament will impose duties as well as confer powers.

I hope the noble Baroness will not seek to press the matter further. There is adequate precedent for using the word "impose". I hope that she accepts that.

:I feel I must comment on the word "imposed". Legislation constantly imposes duties upon local authorities and now on regional authorities but never gives or guarantees the necessary funding to match the impositions. I feel that that point should be made.

:I understand the point the Minister makes. However, can the Government see their way to making it in less imposing language?

:I did not speak on Second Reading but I am interested in this Bill and hope to join in debates from time to time. I felt that the Minister replied in a very casual way. What would happen if the authority refused to have the power imposed?

:I am not sure I can better the comment of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. Obviously my original intervention was not sufficiently imposing for the noble Baroness. I hope it was not casual. It is a matter of convention that the term "imposed" is used in relation to local authorities.

I accept in part the more general point that when we impose we should seek to ensure that we provide the resources to ensure that the duty is carried out. That is certainly this Government's intention with regard to the Greater London Authority. However, the word "imposed" is not inappropriate here. We use it in other areas of local government. In this devolution debate it is right that this Parliament should impose functions on local authorities and other assemblies within our devolved constitution.

The sanctions available if an authority refused to carry out the function would depend upon what function we were talking about. There are some sanctions in local authority legislation; there are others where the sanction is left to the electorate. It depends very much on how we draft the legislation. There are different powers within this Bill with regard to different functions. I am trying to resist the implication that the word "imposed" by definition is a draconian measure. It is not. It is one frequently used by the draftsman over the years.

:I understood the Minister to tell the Committee that in all legislation it is usual to "confer" functions and "impose" duties. In this subsection there is no mention of duties. If we wish to impose something on a local authority, as we may well do, not just in this legislation but also in future legislation, should they not be duties and should not those duties be mentioned in the subsection as well as the functions?

:This grammatical debate is taking some time. In my initial reply I said that "functions" subsumed both powers and duties, and that indeed is the case. The normal terminology therefore is to "confer" powers and to "impose" duties. In individual areas of this and other Bills, that is the terminology used.

:My noble friend made the point I had in mind; that is, whether "functions" really does subsume powers and duties or responsibilities. When the Minister said he hoped I would not take the matter further, my noble friends, in a chorus, said, "Why not?". That was perhaps being a little mischievous. This may be an occasion—not to set a precedent for the rest of the Bill—when I can say that, although I shall read the Minister's answer, I do not believe I shall want to bring the matter back later. I thank him for his explanation and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 2.

:I understand why the noble Lord has raised this point because it is often difficult to see whether definitions relate to part or all of the Bill, and it is a bit like a treasure hunt. I am not sure that it is for me to make the noble Lord very happy, but is he not satisfied with the definition contained in Clause 329 which applies to the whole of the Bill?

:I am grateful to the noble Lord and even more grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I trust that the Committee will accept that the amendment is unnecessary in so far as noble Lords will be pleased to note, together with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that Clause 329 of the Bill is an interpretation clause which sets out the meaning of various terms. In common with normal legislative practice, there is a consolidated interpretation clause in which definitions are brought together. Clause 329(1) states:

"In this Act…'the Authority' means the Greater London Authority".

I hope that reference meets the concerns spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

:I am delighted to receive that assurance. The amendment arose out of what I regard as a logical necessity to put definitions at the beginning rather than the end so that one knows what ground one is standing on before one starts. That is why it slipped my memory. I apologise to the Committee and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No.3.

:I am not sure whether in this group of amendments the noble Baroness proposes that the deputy mayor should be elected on a joint ticket with the mayor or whether a separate vote is involved. If it were to be on a joint ticket, then the electors would not be presented with any additional choice. If anything, the matter would become rather more confusing and difficult for the electors.

The manifesto on which the mayor will be elected will be very much the mayor's manifesto. I believe that that is right, given that the model which is proposed in this Bill is that it is for the mayor to create and revise strategies and to put forward policies. The proposal that the deputy should be directly and separately elected may be rather confusing. The noble Baroness compared the situation with the US presidency, but the situation in the United States is different in that there the deputy would take over and literally has the possibility of having his finger on the button for the rest of the four-year term. These proposals would involve a by-election. Therefore, we are not comparing like with like.

To my mind, the most important point is the possibility of the choice of a deputy mayor from out of the assembly, which allows for a pluralist approach and a reflection of the diversity of the assembly which is likely to be created, given the form of elections that we shall have. It may well be that there will be no political majority in the assembly and even if there is, the culture of the authority—comprising the mayor on the one hand and. the assembly members on the other—will be co-operative, consultative, cross-party and extremely constructive. To allow for the appointment of the deputy from among the men and women who make up the assembly may be one factor which helps to encourage that.

This is a rather novel proposal by the noble Baroness. She may be at a slight disadvantage because it may be slightly more logical for the amendment to be taken with other amendments to be taken later which deal with the assembly being only effectively a delegate body from the London boroughs. The noble Baroness will not be surprised that we intend to resist that amendment. But were the totality of the Conservative vision for the structure of the authority to be adopted, there may have been some scope for discussing whether the deputy mayor should be designated as a member of the assembly.

However, with an elected assembly and a directly elected mayor, I do not believe there is much of an argument, whether on a joint ticket or a parallel election, for a directly elected mayor. I am not aware of a similar situation being pursued elsewhere in local and city government. The noble Baroness tried to give two analogies to the Committee. The first in relation to the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister is not entirely correct. The Deputy Prime Minister currently has a wide range of powers, as the Committee will know because I represent him in this Chamber. However, this is an entirely different situation, with a directly elected mayor and an assembly whose main role is one of scrutiny.

Nor is the analogy with the United States entirely appropriate. Indeed, from the early history of the United States, it seems that the case for a directly elected mayor is fraught with difficulties. The Committee may recall that in the early years the vice-president was not elected on a joint ticket but separately, or in effect as the runner-up. One of the early vice-presidents became fed up with the president. He ran off and tried to declare Louisiana independent. Gore Vidal wrote an interesting although probably not entirely accurate book on the man. Subsequently, John C. Calhoun almost went on, as Vice-President, to declare South Carolina independent—after he had fallen out with his President. Vice-Presidents running on a separate ticket are not a particularly good analogy—unless the noble Baroness wants Hendon or wherever declaring UDI within the Greater London Authority.

If the mayor were to run on a separate ticket, the deputy mayor would clearly have a separate but equal mandate. If they were running on the same ticket, what would be the difference between the mayor designating his or her own deputy and the mayor having a running mate? It certainly would not increase the range of choice, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said. It is possible that, if there were parallel elections, the deputy mayor would receive a larger number of votes than the mayor—which would create an interesting problem. Because of the allocation of functions, it is clear that the mayor's view would prevail. Were there to be an equal or arguably higher legitimate vote for the deputy, how would that appear?

If the two were elected on a joint ticket and subsequently fell out over policy, how would that problem be resolved? The whole administration could soldier on but there would be a degree of political stalemate and the authority's energy would be diverted to in-fighting and stand-offs because the mayor would be unable to sack or replace his or her deputy with someone who shared his or her views or whose support the mayor needed in the assembly. That seems a recipe for chaos.

As to whether or not the deputy mayor appointed by the mayor should be a member of the assembly, the whole rationale is that there is some division of powers between the assembly and the mayor. The deputy mayor will, in a sense, be a bridge between the two parts of the authority—so that they have a shared sense of purpose and work together for the people of London as a whole. That is a reflection of consensual politics among the institutions in the authority. We propose one or two specific roles for the deputy mayor, including that he or she must sit on the new police authority. That would provide a vital link between the assembly, mayor and new democratic policing structure that we are putting in place. That link would be undermined by the amendments.

The Opposition argue that if the deputy mayor were an assembly member, the role of the assembly would be blurred. That is not the case. The assembly would have clearly defined powers to call to account the mayor, deputy mayor and other members of the Administration. The mayor would have to answer to the assembly and justify actions and reasons. Other than the deputy mayor, no assembly member would have executive functions. The rest of the assembly's scrutiny role, therefore, would not be compromised. The assembly will be seen to be at the heart of the mayor's accountability. The deputy mayor will perform functions that would help the mayor link to the assembly's priorities and procedures.

Were the mayor to be separately elected there would be considerable constraints on the mayor's ability to act throughout his or her term of office. Were a deputy mayor to be designated by the people, the mayor would not be free to structure his administration as he saw fit—which may change during the course of the period of office. The mayor could not, therefore, appoint a new deputy in mid-term whatever the circumstances. The amendment would rule out that possibility, which would seriously constrain the mayor's freedom of action.

The noble Baroness will see that there are many difficulties in the concept of a parallel and directly elected deputy mayor. She herself indicated that there would have to be a large number of consequential amendments, although I congratulate her on spotting the number that she did in this group. Given the structure that we are proposing, which the House and the London electorate have endorsed, a directly elected deputy mayor would not be sensible. I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

Before my noble friend decides, I want to take up some of the arguments used by the Minister. I was surprised when he said that there is no such arrangement in local government. There is no such arrangement as a directly elected mayor in local government anyway, so we are talking about something quite different. As we are entering into an arrangement that is uniquely introduced into British local government for the first time, it is right and proper that my noble friend should raise the points she has.

In my days in local government, the deputy lord mayor played an important role. Reading the Bill, it seems extraordinary that the office of deputy mayor of London is not stated and made. That office must be a significant part of the governance of London. The Minister said the intention was that the deputy mayor would sit on the new police authority and be the link person. That clearly indicates the importance that the Government attach to the office.

The Minister made much of the argument that the amendment might present the opportunity for conflict. From my reading of the Bill and understanding of the assembly's structure, I would have thought it was a recipe for conflict. All the way through, there are to be two lots of directly elected people in London. There are bound to be endless conflicts between the boroughs and the mayor's department—all directly elected and all arguing for different things. If the Minister is in doubt, any of us with experience in local government outside London knows perfectly well that there are conflicts at this very moment between districts and counties. That will be repeated in London.

The question for the Committee is what is likely to make for the most effective form of government in London, on the assumption—it is certainly mine—that we want this set-up to work and be in the interests of Londoners and good government in London. I do not think that has been thought through by the Government. My noble friend has a real point about the importance of the deputy mayor. I fail to see any reason why he or she should not be directly elected.

I apologise to the Committee and particularly to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that I did not make it clear that the proposal was for an election on a joint ticket—not a separate election.

The Minister commented on my remark that extra drafting would be necessary. I was trying to make the point that since the Bill left the other place there has already been an enormous amount of redrafting, with 67 new clauses. The Minister said there was more redrafting to come. That is symptomatic of recent Bills. For example, one hardly recognised the Employment Relations Bill when it reached here from the other place. Redrafting is no reason for not being concerned.

The Minister did not answer my point that this is very much a new way of doing things. This is the first statute to attempt to divorce the executive from the legislature. That has to be done carefully and without muddying the waters. Clause 41 definitely muddies the waters. On the one hand, there is an assembly whose duty it is to scrutinise the work of the mayor. Then all of a sudden, the deputy mayor appears to be selected from the assembly. That weakens the whole idea of a separation of powers and must be looked at again.

The other point that I should like to raise with the Minister, because he did not seem to answer it, is one made by my noble friend Lady Young relating to Amendment No. 3. The amendment refers to Clause 2(1) of the Bill, which says:

"The Authority shall consist of— the Mayor of London; and an Assembly for London, to be known as the London Assembly'.

The point I was making was that the wording should read:

"The Authority shall be the Mayor of London, the Deputy Mayor of London and the Assembly".

Whether or not it is decided that the deputy mayor should simply be someone chosen from the assembly, the point is that if the deputy mayor is going to have these roles and functions to stand in for the mayor in certain designated areas under the subsection that I mentioned earlier, he will be an important part of the authority and should be so named. I shall be most grateful if the Minister can comment on that amendment.

Before the Minister responds, perhaps he could answer some of the questions posed by my noble friend Lady Young. I believe that he was about to do so before my noble friend rose to speak. I shall be most interested to hear his answers. I should like to say to my noble friend Lady Miller that I do think it makes all the difference in the world that she meant that the mayor and deputy mayor should be on a joint ticket. I was picturing the kind of disagreements that might arise if they were elected separately. I did not rise to support my noble friend because I could not see that working.

However, if it is a joint ticket, that would be a very different thing. No doubt it would be seen by some as a dream ticket, but these two would doubtless work together in tandem satisfactorily because they would have been elected to do so. It is a much more serious amendment if it is a matter of a joint ticket. Therefore, I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in reply, especially to the points raised by my noble friend Lady Young.

I was going to intervene on the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in two senses. First, I believe that she misunderstood my reference to equivalence. I was talking internationally in terms of local government or of city governments. To my knowledge, there is no equivalent where you have a separately elected deputy mayor. But I also think that the case is probably true on a joint ticket if there is a mayor and he then appoints the members of his administration. That is how we envisage it.

Secondly, I did not quite follow the noble Baroness, Lady Young, when she said that there is already conflict of authority, if not legitimacy, here between two lots of directly elected people when you interpose a third directly elected person with slightly different functions. The point of the deputy mayor from our point of view is threefold. First, he will be deputy in the strict sense of the word. Once appointed, he can take up duties which the mayor requests him to do. Secondly, there are some specific roles, in particular in relation to the Metropolitan Police, where I believe it would probably not he appropriate for the mayor to be on the authority. But it would make sense for a clear link between the mayor, the assembly and the police authority. The general roles of deputy mayor are outlined to a large extent in Clause 41 of the Bill.

Thirdly, our intention is that the deputy mayor should act as a link between the two directly elected bodies, one of which is there primarily for scrutiny while the other is there primarily as the executive. There is an area of conflict clearly envisaged in that demarcation/separation of powers. Giving the deputy mayor some specific recognition will not make him the equivalent of the mayor, with the equivalent legitimacy of the mayor, as perhaps would apply if one included him in every phrase where, if one referred to the mayor, you put instead "the mayor and the deputy mayor". I believe that that is the logic of the noble Baroness's position.

However, it does give a separate position which, on the authority of the mayor and on the authority of the legislation, can provide a bridge between the two parts of this authority. That is unique. I argued against the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, saying that her position was unique, but this is pretty well a unique link that we are establishing here. It is an innovative position to provide separately for an executive power in local government and for the scrutiny power in local government. Therefore, it is important that we also provide mechanisms which give a link between the two. In our view, the deputy mayor is one of the ways in which that function can be carried out. I believe that that would apply whether we were on a joint ticket or whether there were separate elections. Clearly it would apply even more strongly if there were a separate election, but it would also apply were the deputy mayor effectively to achieve the same degree of legitimacy by being on a joint ticket.

Perhaps I may pursue that point with the Minister. I listened with great interest to what he said. He has revealed a great deal more about what the Government intend should be the role of the deputy mayor. The deputy mayor is obviously an extremely important person. Not only is he the link with the police authority but, if I understood the Minister correctly, he will also be the link person between the executive and the—I am not quite sure how to describe this—assembly of the new authority. Indeed, I should have thought that the parallel with an American vice-president would in fact become stronger, although it is not one that I would have drawn at the beginning of the debate.

Far from actually strengthening the Government's case, I believe that the argument that the Minister has made out has strengthened the case of my noble friend Lady Miller. If you are to have someone who will be so powerful in this organisation, surely that person ought to be linked with the mayor on a joint ticket for the election so that everyone knows; otherwise, you will have an election and the most important person after the mayor will be chosen presumably by the mayor—or possibly by a few of his colleagues, but how are we to know because the procedure is not laid down?—for a position which will be extremely important. I should have thought that that undermined the democratic element involved: the right of electors to know who they are getting for this important job. I wonder whether the Minister would like to think about this again.

There are two points I should like to make, one of which I suppose is the trump card that I was keeping up my sleeve. First, the deputy mayor as described in this legislation and as envisaged for this authority would be an important figure. He would be able to represent the mayor, but he would be a member of the mayor's administration. He would not be of equal or of virtually equal legitimacy to the mayor in democratic terms. It is true that he would perform a hybrid role as a member of the assembly and as a member of the executive; indeed, he would be the only person who would be able to do so as distinct from the current pattern of local government within this country. Therefore, it is a new structure. However, if you put on that very important person the additional power of direct election equivalent to the mayor, you would actually be building in a recipe for further rather than less conflict.

Secondly—I hope that this will not be regarded as a throw-away point—we did of course pass an Act in this Chamber for a referendum. The people of London did vote on the structure of the GLA and that had two directly elected components, not three. Therefore, were we to raise the spectre of a third directly elected element within this constitution at this stage of the proceedings, I think it would be possible to argue that that would undermine what the voters of London had already indicated they were prepared to accept. Indeed, from the overwhelming endorsement that that referendum had, it was very much welcomed. If nothing else, I hope that that will help convince the noble Baroness not to pursue the matter.

As the Minister continued with his response, I have to confess that I became even more confused, especially when he threw down his trump card about the deputy mayor being part of the administration. The point I was trying to make was that either we have separation of powers or we do not. It is my view that this muddies the water. However, at this stage I shall take the matter away and read in Hansard with great care what the Minister said. Perhaps he will consider the arguments that we have put forward today so that we can pursue the matter at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 4:

I advise the Committee that, if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 5 to 16 inclusive.

That is not the reason why I do not agree with the noble Baroness with regard to this group of amendments. We think it is essential that the new authority takes a strategic approach. I accept that the noble Baroness has included that in her "job description" in this group of amendments. However, I believe that the model which she proposes would make it difficult for the members to approach their job strategically.

I believe that the assembly will be rather on the small side easily to permit a mix of constituency and London-wide views. The noble Baroness talked passionately about the need to support the different parts of London and the different boroughs. I do not argue against that. However, I think it is particularly important that the members achieve the right mix of a pan-London approach in their work with an understanding of the particular parts of London. The Government's model proposes that the constituency members will have that mix: other members will have it simply through their backgrounds. I do not think it is necessary for each member to represent one identified, discrete borough in order to achieve the understanding and feel for different parts of London which I believe will be a part of the job.

The remit of the assembly is to be scrutiny, not policy making. I suspect that to have direct borough representation could well be counter-productive to the fulfilment of that role. On considering this group of amendments I wondered whether borough representation might even stand in the way of a good relationship between the authority and the boroughs. It is important that the authority has regard to the views of the boroughs and that it liaises with them. I believe that it should liaise with them direct, not through the representatives who are members of the assembly. In other words, we should not have the situation where individual members attend a meeting of the assembly and speak for the boroughs as that in itself could be a block to the right relationship between the authority and all the London boroughs.

One reason for the need for that relationship may be because any given borough will wish to put forward not just a single, simple view on each issue. Some boroughs will not be under the control of one political party, but even if that is not the case I hope that there will be the scope for all council members who have sensible things to say in dialogue with the authority to be able to put their views forward. I believe that to have a single representative might represent something of a block to that. I can even envisage a situation where representatives of the boroughs, as assembly members, could get sucked into the decisions of the authority. One can see that happening from time to time. That would make it even more difficult for such members to argue a distinct borough position.

We on these Benches believe that London needs a London government. The success of the GLA will in part be measured by reconciling the interests or different parts of London—the different geographical parts, different social parts, people in different types of employment and so on; the list is quite long. To sum up, the GLA should reconcile and take forward the interests of the various communities of London, of which we are all members. Those communities need to be pulled together at a strategic level and not taken over from the boroughs. I stress that in making these points we are not concerned to block borough interests—quite the opposite—but the GLA should be more than a collection of boroughs; in our view, the whole must be more than the sum of the parts.

I support the amendments moved by my noble friend. On page 9 of the Explanatory Notes to the Bill it states that there will be 14 members directly elected under the first-past-the-post system and an additional 11 under the d'Hondt formula. As I understand it, that system was used for the European elections. In my constituency in Oxfordshire, under that system, the Liberal Democrats closed list was so closed that we were not sent the names of the candidates. I found that fascinating.

Any borough se-up would be better than the way suggested in the Bill. Even in the 14 constituencies which are to have direct elections, the candidates will be selected, presumably, on a party basis. I do not think the party selection process is as good as a system of direct election. Under the compromise put forward by my noble friend in these amendments, whereby each borough would nominate someone for the assembly, at least the people nominated would have been directly elected by constituents in the boroughs concerned. They will have been through a direct electoral process, which is much preferable to the d'Hondt system. Can the Minister assure us that the Government are prepared to look at an alternative way? This half PR system seems to me to be only half good.

I was interested when the Minister referred to the referendum on London government. Although he did not say that he was going to play it as his trump card, he clearly regarded it as very important. If my memory serves me correctly there was a very low poll then of approximately 35 per cent; hardly an overwhelming majority. The likelihood is that, except for about 25, hardly any of those voting actually understood the intricacies of the proposed voting system.

I am even more surprised that the Minister can defend such a system after our experience of the European elections last Thursday. Even in the polling station the ballot paper was regarded as a joke. I do not consider it funny at all; it is extremely serious that such a totally discredited system should be employed in London. I do not live permanently in London, but I would not wish on London that kind of an election. Whatever else the Government do or do not do, they should reconsider the whole system, which has been thoroughly discredited.

The noble Baroness has used the word "discredited" on a couple of occasions. Is that simply because of the low poll? If so, would not she then apply the same etiquette to elections which have been held for local government in the past, where polls as low as 10 per cent have been recorded? Does not that discredit also her system as well?

I have fought a number of local government elections and the poll—although, admittedly, not as high as I wished—was always between 40 and 50 per cent. A figure of 23 per cent throughout the country is a very low poll. I dislike what happened because of the number of people who said to me, "Who are we voting for?" From much of the literature which dropped through one's door, one did not know for whom one was voting. Therefore, although we have representatives in the European Parliament, there will be absolutely no means of communicating with them. That seems to me a "discreditable" election and I stand by that word. The Government should think again.

A further difficulty is that the new constituencies are not coterminous with the London boroughs. Perhaps I may make a very serious point about local government. In my experience of local government, one of the great difficulties—I do not think it has yet been resolved; it is a matter about which all local governments are concerned—is the lack of coterminous areas for the different functions which affect the population at large. In local government there are police authorities, water authorities and so on, all operating under different areas. It is very difficult for people to understand. The idea that this will somehow be made more transparent simply is not true. It is a recipe for conflict.

If we are to have a system of voting similar to that of last Thursday, there will be an even lower poll than at the European elections. People will have no idea for whom they are voting or what they are supposed to be doing. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is looking for splendid people who are able to take an overall view of the needs of London and at the same time understand the intricate local details of the London boroughs. She is looking for paragons. If she found them, it would be a triumph of hope over experience. We are unlikely to find people able to fulfil both tasks.

A very complicated structure is being created for London which by no means can be described as democratic in the way that we have always understood. It will have a built-in conflict between the boroughs and the assembly and the party list people. For instance, transport is one of the most difficult issues with which to deal, particularly when one is dealing with road schemes, bus lanes and other matters of public transport. There will be two groups interested in that subject—the new authority and the boroughs—and each group will be represented by different people on different boundaries. It is most improbable that that will be more efficient. The Minister should look again at some parts of this package.

The Minister previously indicated that the Government were not too keen on Amendment No. 4 and the notion of nominated members. If he is to tell us that, will he at the same time give his attention to the notion that there should be 33 members of the authority? Even if the Minister insists on direct election to the authority, if there were to be one member from each authority—and here I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—it would be an enormous advantage to the person taking the strategic view to have been elected from the authority which will have to put matters into practice.

When I was a councillor—it was some time ago; I am not pretending I am up to date but I believe matters have not changed—I was a member of the strategic authority. I came from one of the lower authorities. I would talk to the lower authorities; I would consult them; I knew exactly how the strategic decisions would affect them, but that did not mean that I was not detached when I made a decision.

To be elected from two or two-and-a-half authorities, which is what will happen, is a fairly strange idea. There is something to be said for having 33 members of the authority, even if they are elected. I wonder whether the noble Lord will consider that part of the amendment even if he will not accept all of it. The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, who has enormous experience of local government—she knows a great deal more about it than I do—will be able to help him on this matter; perhaps not at the moment, but as time goes on. I think it is one that he should consider.

Perhaps I may express one or two doubts about the amendment to add to those more serious ones raised by my noble friend. If I understand the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, correctly, she is suggesting that the 33 members will be nominated. Yet the processes for the election of London and individual members are not omitted entirely; they are merely modified. So at the end of the day I am not sure whether we are talking about election or nomination.

Perhaps I may respond briefly to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. It is true that there is a conflict of interest in a county council between one's duty to consider the well-being of the county council and one's desire to represent one's constituents. However, as I understand the Bill, the position will not he the same under the new authority where the assembly members will have a strategic role but will carry out very little day-to-day detailed administration of individual projects.

I wish to ask the Minister some questions. Why was the figure of 25 chosen? Why has that 25 become a division of 14 and 11? I ask the Minister to take seriously the points made by my noble friends Lady Gardner and Lady Young.

I was in Ireland over the weekend. On the lamp-posts, in the streets and in the houses were names and pictures of human beings who wished to represent that country in Europe. I was very struck by that because the European elections have been the first I remember in 30 years where I hardly saw a poster from one end of Britain to the other. Could that possibly be because no one knew who they were voting for? Is it too late for us to acknowledge that the turnout of 23 per cent was not good? Is it too late for him to go back to the Deputy Prime Minister and say that perhaps strategically it is wise to have 25 and perhaps there is a reason for not having 32, but would it not be wise for those 25 all to have to stand in front of the electorate and state that they wish to be elected to the assembly? Is it too late to ask the noble Lord not to stand at the Dispatch Box and say, "Frankly, we have decided. We have not taken any notice of what happened in last Thursday's election. We will go back and we will reconsider. It is possible that we may even have made a mistake"?

The noble Lord, Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, has once again provoked me to intervene. I was interested in his experiences in Ireland during the recent European elections. I therefore look forward to his support later on today when we move amendments for elections by the single transferable vote in multi-member constituencies, a system identical to that which he has just been praising in Ireland. We look forward to his support later today.

Most of today's debate has been about the shortcomings, or the perceived shortcomings, of the Government's proposals. I have considerable sympathy with much of what has been said about the present system. We will be raising our concerns and our alternative proposals a little later on. However, what I wish to deal with are the amendments before us, which is what I think we should be debating, and the proposals coming from the Conservative Benches. I suppose that I have an interest to declare because the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, and I are the only two Members of your Lordships' House who could benefit if these amendments were passed by being in the fast-track to the Greater London Assembly, because we have been elected as members of London borough councils. For that reason, I believe that these amendments are absolute nonsense.

I was elected to Sutton Council to represent the people of my ward on Sutton Council. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, would say the same of his authority. I have not been elected, yet, to the Greater London assembly. There is an important difference. We have seen something of the effect of indirect nomination in Greater London over the past 13 years. For example, we see it on all the joint bodies that have been trying to run London. For a few years I served, for my sins, on the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority which is, as its name suggests, an authority. It comprises representatives of each London borough and the City of London. It does its best to do a good job. In saying this I do not wish to criticise the authority, but it is not the same as having an authority which is able to take a strategic view of London. Every year the London Fire and Civil Defence. Authority has a battle over its budget, every year there is a battle over which fire stations to close or which pumps to remove, and every year the borough representatives, absolutely correctly, fight for their borough interests. Of course they do. They were elected to their borough councils, and that is what they are there to do.

There is an important difference between the proposed assembly and any authority in that the assembly will not be an operational body. IL will not have powers like that. But if people go there directly from their borough councils—not directly elected by the people, but appointed by their borough councils, as was said when the amendment was moved—appointed by the majority party, in those cases where there is a majority party, they will be there and will be expected to be there fighting for the particular interests of their borough, and even more particularly for the interests of their borough council, which is not necessarily always the same thing.

We strongly believe that the Greater London assembly and the Greater London authority must take a strategic view. We have concerns that the 14 proposed constituencies would inhibit that. I am certain that if we go there simply as representatives nominated by our borough councils, as if we were appointed to any other outside body, as every council does at its annual meeting every year—perhaps this authority is slightly more important than some of the others—it will be very difficult indeed even for the paragons of virtue that will form this assembly to take a strategic view for London overall. While I do not support the Government's proposals, I think that the alternatives suggested in the amendments are the worst possible, and we will oppose them.

In replying to the debate, I, like the noble Lord, Lord Tope, would like to address the amendment that is before the Committee. We have so far ranged rather widely in the debate. The proposition of the noble Lord, Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, are not to be found on the Marshalled List either in relation to this group of amendments or in relation to the next ones. Many of the issues which lie behind their questions are better considered in relation to later groupings.

This group of amendments directly confronts the issue of whether the assembly should be appointed or elected. That is a fairly simple question. The wider implications that have been raised may well arise when we discuss the mechanics of election once we have disposed of these amendments. Of course, if we were to carry the amendments, we would never reach that point. I trust that noble Lords will appreciate that what we are proposing with regard to election is not precisely the same as that used for the European elections. I hope noble Lords will understand that on today of all days I do not wish particularly to dwell on the European elections. They were, however, very similar to those successfully conducted in Scotland and Wales.

So far as this group is concerned, what is proposed is that the London borough authorities should take one of their number from each authority and make them into the assembly. As the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said, the councillors for those boroughs, worthy and effective though they may be, were not elected for that job. They were elected to look after, not the strategic interests of London, but the interests of their electorates in a particular borough.

Moreover, the people of London have clearly pronounced on the principle here. The referendum was pretty clear: are you in favour of the Government's proposal for a Greater London Authority, an elected mayor and a separately elected assembly? I do not think there is any ambiguity there. If your Lordships now wish to overturn the referendum decision and what was in the Act passed by this Parliament, then we are getting into difficult waters. I think it is clear that there is a different role for the assembly. The assembly must concentrate on representing the electorate of London over strategic decisions affecting the whole of London. It is not a delegated body, with representatives delegated to represent the individual boroughs.

We clearly want to differentiate between the parochial—perhaps in the best sense—interests of the boroughs and the strategic planning for transport and other powers that we are investing in the authority. That requires a direct relationship with the people through directly elected assembly members. They do not need to be indirectly nominated by the London boroughs whose members were elected for a different purpose. This principle has already been endorsed by Parliament and the people of London. We should therefore reject these amendments and proceed to perhaps a more interesting although more complex issue—the method of election to the assembly. I hope that the noble Baroness recognises that she is attempting to reverse decisions already taken. That is not profitable in this context and perhaps we should move on.

I am sorry that I did not explain myself properly. I did not mention proportional representation. I was talking about this amendment and asking the noble Lord whether, if he intended to reject the idea of nominated members, as he has done—and I understand why—he would look at the fact that it might be advantageous to have 33 members, one from each area, coterminous with the authority. I clearly put my question in a muddled way, as I often do. However, there may be something in the amendment which the noble Lord can think about with advantage. I think it worth considering that for a whole host of reasons.

I hope that the noble Baroness does not think I was being discourteous. The point I was making was that this amendment clearly includes the word "nominated." As to the size of the assembly, there is an amendment down later suggesting 40 rather than 33, and this question will come up more logically with the next group. I thought therefore I would not deploy the argument here. I apologise to the noble Baroness if she thought I was being discourteous in not directly replying to her point.

I wonder if I could add one word to what my noble friend Lord Tope said about borough representatives rightly fighting the cause of their own borough. I would have an additional concern: the time and the energy that borough representatives could put into their role on a strategic body. I have had experience of this myself. I have seen the enormous difficulties that borough council members have in carrying out a strategic role. When I chaired a London-wide committee for a number of years, I was impressed by the efforts that were made by individual borough members. I was also very conscious of the great difficulties they had in running the two roles at the same time. It was not for want of interest, but they always had to put their boroughs first. If we got to a point in a meeting where an important decision was coming up, if they had to be back in their own borough for a meeting that evening they would have to go back there. It is not only the balance of interest which would weigh with individual members when approaching the job. There is also a particular difficulty in actually running the two roles.

I served on the regional authority, the Greater London Council, and for eight years at the same time on a local authority. I never had any difficulty. So the generalisation made by the noble Baroness cannot be taken to apply to everyone.

I know exactly what my noble friend means. The serious point—and perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, will clarify this—is whether she and her colleagues are seriously suggesting that the new Greater London Authority should override the wishes of the boroughs when considering these strategic matters?

No, I hope I made that clear earlier. I said specifically that our concerns about the amendment were by no means to be taken as being against the boroughs. It is indeed in part because of my concern that borough interests should be properly represented in dialogues with the authority that I have difficulty with this set of amendments. I hope it will become apparent during the Committee stage that we are very concerned to protect the boroughs and would not want to see the new authority trying to make a takeover bid for the functions of the boroughs.

I would ask the noble Baronesses, Lady Young and Lady Miller, whether, in other parts of the country where there are two-tier authorities, rightly or wrongly, they are prepared to contemplate a county council consisting entirely of delegates from district authorities. I suggest that the answer must be no.

I am not sure whether or not that is a hypothetical question but in the far-off days when I was in local government I had the great good fortune to serve on an all-purpose authority. It was the most efficient and most effective form of local authority. It is a matter of much regret that it disappeared under the 1972 Local Government Act. I am on record as saying so at the time. I think that some effort has been made to put it back. It is because I have seen the difficulties that I raise these points.

I was rather disappointed to hear the Minister say that he hoped we would move on to more interesting parts of the Bill because on this side of the Chamber we feel that this group of amendments is very interesting and very important. I hope that the noble Lord did not really mean it.

So far as this group of amendments is concerned, I quite understand when he says that we have moved just a little away from the gist of the matter. I thought that Clause 41 muddied the water in a way. I believe that the whole idea of this assembly muddies the water in regard to the ordinary elector of London—the citizen who is living in London—as to who does what and where they do it, and so on.

There are so many tiers for London under this Bill that I think everything could get very difficult. We felt that in order not to bypass the boroughs and not to cause a conflict between the boroughs and the assembly our proposal would be a very good way of dealing with it. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, said that he did not think it appropriate for the representatives to be nominated but I believe he also said—he will correct me if I am wrong—that he had been nominated by his borough to serve on the Fire and Civil Defence Authority. Certainly the people in his area would not have known that before, and that does not seem to stop anybody acting in a very proper and strategic way. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, said that she had no difficulty. My noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes also had no difficulty, when she served on the Greater London Council, in dealing locally, parochially and strategically. There is no doubt about that.

I noted the comment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, towards the end of her first intervention that she had no intention of blocking the views of the boroughs. However, in her earlier remarks I understood her to highlight some difficulty in liasing with the boroughs. I shall read her remarks with care.

I shall certainly not press the amendment. I shall read the report of the debate with great care. 'This is an important matter. The other points made by my noble friends—for example, on the number of people voting—have merely been touched upon. It is important for an elector to know who will deal with his or her problem—whether it will be the local council, the assembly, the mayor, the Member of Parliament, the Member of the European Parliament, and so on. The problem is that. the situation in London is becoming so convoluted. That is quite a danger. My amendments offer a way of solving the problem. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

In order that my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean may repeat a Statement made in another place, I beg to move that the House do now resume.

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement on recent developments in Kosovo made in another place by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. The Statement is as follows:

"Today is the fifth day since the entry into force of the military agreement. I can report to the House that Serb forces are leaving Kosovo, broadly in line with the phased withdrawal set out in that agreement. Meanwhile, NATO forces have entered much of southern and central Kosovo and are ahead of the planned timetable for their deployment.

"The whole House will wish to congratulate our troops on the professionalism with which they have deployed so quickly and efficiently. Members of the House will have seen pictures of the spontaneous welcome they have received from Kosovo Albanians wherever they have gone. The warmth with which those Albanians have expressed their joy at our arrival speaks volumes for the brutality and the terror from which our campaign has liberated them. For the past two months they have seen their neighbours massacred, their relatives raped and their homes burnt. Now they can see a future in which none of these crimes can return to haunt Kosovo.

"The presence of Russian troops around the airport has not interfered with the deployment of NATO forces. Our forces are entering as planned from Macedonia. It is important to keep a sense of perspective on the numbers involved. There are only a couple of hundred Russian troops in Kosovo, compared with 14,000 NATO troops.

"General Jackson this morning had a businesslike meeting with General Zavarzin, the commander of Russian troops at Pristina airport. He has just reported that he hopes that agreement can be reached on assimilating the Russian troops into KFOR.

"Nevertheless, it was plainly unsatisfactory that Russian troops should have entered without co-ordination. Yesterday I spoke at length to Igor Ivanov, the Russian Foreign Minister, and we agreed that there should be no more surprise moves. He gave an undertaking that Russia would not deploy any further troops without prior agreement. Earlier undertakings about Russian deployments have not all been respected. It is crucial that this undertaking should be fully respected.

"Negotiations, led by the United States, continue over how Russia's contribution to KFOR can be integrated into the overall operation. These have been protracted negotiations. On the Russian side, their military have sought a sector of their own. On our side, we have insisted that any outcome must meet the terms of the peace plan for a single operation with a unified chain of command. There is no provision anywhere in the peace plan for partition of Kosovo.

"Several non-NATO countries will contribute forces to Kosovo. I have always made clear that we would welcome Russia also working with us as partners in the peacekeeping force. But it must be as part of a single, integrated operation, not as an independent force.

"That reflects our commitment to liberating the whole, not part, of Kosovo. We now face a major challenge in helping all of Kosovo to recover from the atrocities of the past year. There are four immediate priorities.

"First, we must ensure security and safety for all the people of Kosovo, whether Albanian or Serb, or any other ethnic group. KFOR will be alert and robust in ensuring that all Serb forces withdraw from Kosovo within the agreed timetable, which should be completed over the next week.

"KFOR will also be responsible for the demilitarisation of the Kosovo Liberation Army. I spoke last night to Hashem Thaqi, the leader of the KLA, and stressed that we expect restraint from the KLA as the Serb forces withdraw, and co-operation in our efforts to end all violence in Kosovo.

"Secondly, we must provide urgent relief to the hundreds of thousands of displaced persons who have spent the last two months hiding from Serb forces on the hillsides and in the forests inside Kosovo. A convoy with much British support delivered humanitarian supplies to Pristina yesterday on behalf of UNHCY and is reloading today in Macedonia.

"Thirdly, we must manage the return of the masses of refugees who were deported as part of Milosevic's failed plan for the ethnic cleansing of Kosovo. We should not be glib about refugees returning to their homes. Many of their homes have been blown up or burnt down by Serb aggression. We face a major task in helping the bulk of the refugees to rebuild their homes before the Balkan winter sets in. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development has today announced a further £50 million for humanitarian relief on top of the £40 million already provided.

"Fourthly, we must record the evidence of the war crimes that have been committed in Kosovo to enforce its ethnic cleansing. There has already been the horrific discovery of a mass grave containing a large number of villagers massacred at Kacanik. We have already started the deployment of a British police team to Macedonia in order that the War Crimes Tribunal can draw on their forensic skill and experience in exhuming victims of the atrocities and identifying the cause of death. Although we have brought peace to Kosovo, its people will not live in peace with themselves unless we bring to justice those responsible for such atrocities.

"For the immediate future, responsibility for the government of Kosovo will be in the hands of an international civil administration. This will be led by the United Nations, but will draw on the contributions of the European Union, the OSCE and the UNHCR. It will be charged with rebuilding the physical infrastructure of Kosovo, regenerating its economy and supervising free elections to new political institutions. Over a period of time, it will transfer its powers to the local people in line with our goal of democratic self-government for Kosovo.

"From the start of the conflict this Government have stressed that we want it to be a turning-point for the whole of the region. All of the many neighbours of Serbia have shown total solidarity with the NATO campaign. We must not now forget the courage and commitment which those governments showed in aligning themselves with us.

"On Thursday, I attended the launch of the Stability Pact, a forum bringing together the countries of the region with the EU, the US, Russia and other key international players. I pledged that, for our part, Britain will be their partner in helping to accelerate their integration into the modern Europe. To do that, we must open up the wealthy markets of the European Union so that they can share our prosperity through increased trade; and we must invest in developing their democratic institutions, civic society and open media in order that they can share in our standards of freedom.

"We hope that one day the people of Serbia will also be able to share in the benefits of the Stability Pact. However, first, it will be necessary for the government in Belgrade to renounce the policies of Milosevic which have brought so much violence to their neighbours and so much poverty to themselves. We cannot embrace Serbia in the modern Europe until Serbia embraces our values of belief in the equality of all citizens irrespective of ethnic identity, and respect for the rights of minorities. There would have been no turning point for the countries of the region if the international community had not demonstrated that we would not tolerate the brutality and ethnic cleansing which Milosevic visited upon Kosovo. The revulsion around the world at the expulsion of the Albanians from Kosovo is confirmed in the text of the Security Council resolution, which was drafted by the G8 Foreign Ministers over 12 hours of negotiation last week. That resolution condemns the violence against the people of Kosovo and demands full co-operation with the War Crimes Tribunal. It meets all our key objectives: the withdrawal of all Serb forces; the deployment of an international military force with a unified command; and the return without hindrance of all refugees.

"There is much hard work still to be done before we have created a Kosovo which will give its people the opportunity to earn their living in peace. The time to celebrate will be when we have settled all the refugees in their homes. But all those in the House who supported NATO's campaign can be satisfied with an outcome that has vindicated the strategy of the alliance and its resolve to defeat the forces of ethnic cleansing. We have compelled an end to the atrocities in Kosovo and secured a future for its people free from fear. We have shown that the era of forced mass deportation of a whole people belongs to Europe's past and that we will not tolerate it coming back again.

"We promised the refugees that we would take them back to Kosovo under our protection. We now have the opportunity to fulfil that promise and we will not slacken in our resolve or determination until we have helped them all go home."

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place and for keeping this House informed of developments in Kosovo as the KFOR peacekeeping operation commences its first week. Much progress has been made over the past few days. NATO's willingness to stand firm in the face of tests to its resolve has borne the first fruits of peace. I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Government and our Armed Forces on what has been achieved. In particular, I pay tribute to the critically important role that is being played by General Sir Michael Jackson and to the exemplary performance of the forces that he leads.

Nevertheless, recent developments also demonstrate the scale of the problems still to be overcome in Kosovo and the difficult decisions which will need to be taken. NATO's response to those decisions will be critical in determining the ultimate success of the operation. Since the first KFOR troops entered Kosovo it has been clear that this is a region where feelings are running dangerously high. Kosovo is a tinderbox of tension as the joy of liberation for the Kosovo Albanians is matched by the bitterness of defeat for the Serbs. This has been demonstrated all too clearly by the conflicts which have arisen between Serbs and British and German troops respectively over the weekend.

Can the Minister confirm that the withdrawal agreement is being adhered to in full by the Serbian forces? Will the Minister provide information on the means by which KFOR is reassuring the remaining Serbian population of Kosovo of its impartiality? Does the Minister agree that the decisive test of NATO's success will be whether the hundreds of thousands of refugees scattered across Europe feel able to return to their homes in Kosovo? Further, does she agree that the composition and deployment of the peacekeeping forces continue to be crucial in this respect?

On that note, I share the Minister's concern over the early deployment of Russian forces in Kosovo and their continued occupation of Pristina airport. In a Statement to this House last Thursday the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, confirmed that British troops could enter Kosovo as early as last Friday. Can the Minister confirm that NATO originally planned for British paratroopers to enter Kosovo on Friday morning, 24 hours after the signing and verification of the agreement? Does not Article II, paragraph 2a, of the military technical agreement signed by General Jackson specify that one day after its entry into force FRY forces would have vacated zone 3 and that the international security force would deploy "rapidly" to avoid a "security gap"? Why were these plans cancelled? Why was a technical and logistical briefing which had been arranged for reporters earlier on Thursday also cancelled?

Can the Minister say when NATO first learnt that Russian troops were entering Kosovo? Is she aware that Brcko Radio reported on Friday morning that Russian troops had departed their barracks in Lopare and Zivinice and that at 10.30 a.m. on Friday Russian troops crossed the border into Serbia at Paylovica Cuprija and that these reports were confirmed by SFOR? Is it not the case that, even if at that point, British troops had moved to Pristina, they would have arrived before the Russians? Is the Minister aware that a further 150 Russian troops were reported yesterday morning to be waiting at Bijeljina to be ready to move into Serbia to reinforce Russian troops at the airport? Can the Minister confirm that Russia has given an assurance that there will be no more surprise troop movements in Kosovo, particularly in the light of reports today that Hungary has refused Russia overflight permission to fly military equipment into Belgrade?

Referring to the future control of Pristina airport, can the noble Baroness say when she expects this matter to be resolved and whether, as just indicated by the Minister, it is subject not just to military negotiation on the ground but also negotiation at a political level? To what extent does the Minister consider that control of the airport is important to the success of the NATO operation, in both strategic and political terms? Will the Minister confirm that the alternative base for KFOR is intended to be temporary in nature?

The deadlock over control of Pristina airport has further highlighted the disputes over Russia's role in the international peacekeeping force and the difficulties that NATO has encountered in seeking to establish a unified chain of command for KFOR with NATO at its core. The noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, last Thursday ruled out a partitioned Kosovo, as the Minister has just done. Can the Minister, therefore, comment on media reports over the weekend that, in the light of the stand-off at the report, US envoy Strobe Talbott has offered to allow Russia a "zone of responsibility" in Kosovo; or is it still the case that, as US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright has previously said, NATO will be "embedded in every sector"?

We welcome the acceptance by the Minister that such a Russian-controlled zone would undermine the key principle reiterated by the Secretary of State for Defence yesterday and that there will be no partition of Kosovo, since such a zone would amount to a de facto partition. To agree to a Russian-controlled enclave would, surely, have the disastrous result of creating a haven for Kosovo Serbs and a no-go area for Kosovo Albanians. While discussions on this critical point continue, can the Minister say to what extent the arrangements in Bosnia, where the Russians are spread across the UK-led Multinational Division (North), are seen as a model for Kosovo?

Does the Minister agree that these events have demonstrated once again that any agreements over Kosovo must be absolutely watertight? The noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, spoke last week about the importance of unified control for all allied troops and for non-NATO troops in Kosovo. The Foreign Secretary said this morning that the Russian Government made a commitment yesterday that Russian troops would be integrated into the overall peacekeeping force. When does the Minister envisage that the terms of this agreement will be finalised?

There are reports today, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, that the first hard evidence of the type of atrocities which refugees have been consistently describing for months has been uncovered. At Kacanik, for example, reporters have counted 80 fresh graves. War crimes investigators are travelling to the site to begin the process of verification of the evidence. In addition to her comments, can the Minister inform the House what specific arrangements are being made for the investigators of war crimes to be given unhindered access to the evidence that they need? Finally, can the Minister provide a little further detail on the developments associated with the first convoy of humanitarian aid to Pristina? How will the Government continue to ensure that the humanitarian and reconstruction efforts are co-ordinated efficiently?

From these Benches we hope that the many issues raised in the Minister's Statement can be covered in depth in a full day's debate in your Lordships' House. I hope that the usual channels will take note and action accordingly, for the events of the past week have lit a beacon of hope for the future of Kosovo. We must ensure that our efforts to secure a lasting settlement for all the population of Kosovo keep alight that beacon of hope and that no one is allowed to extinguish it.

My Lords, I echo the congratulations expressed to our Armed Forces and add my congratulations to the Government on the resolve and determination they have exhibited over the past few weeks. Many people criticised the operation, saying that it could not succeed, and that air power alone would be unable to secure the objectives at which NATO was aiming. The Government persisted in their resolve and proved the critics wrong

There has been an excellent start to the implementation of the agreement under which the NATO forces have entered the territory without encountering serious resistance and were successful in disarming the remnants of the Serb forces which remain with only a handful of small incidents. The Statement mentions the excellent reception that our forces received. It is a reflection of the suffering and hardships endured by the people of Kosovo and vindicates the action that we have taken to restore to their homes those 708,000 people who have been expelled from their own country as well as the additional hundreds of thousands who are displaced within Kosovo.

The more we uncover what has been going on, the more we prove the moral legitimacy of the operation since the Serbian authorities were in the process of murdering, indirectly causing the death of, or expelling from their homes the whole of the population of Kosovo. If one looks at the history of Milosevic's activities in Kosovo, and before that in Bosnia, there is no reason to doubt that if we had not intervened that would have been the end result of the policy.

I take the point that there are only 200 Russian troops in Pristina airport. Can the Minister say whether the Russians have indicated definitely that that is the ultimate size of its contribution to the occupation forces? Alternatively, if agreement can be secured, would they bring in larger numbers of troops; and, if so, would they use Pristina airport to bring them in?

The Statement states that it was the military on the Russian side which sought a sector of its own. Does that mean that there is a difference of opinion between the Russian military and its political masters, with the political masters not insisting on a special sector but the Russian military saying that it should have one? If that were so, it is difficult to see how the undertakings now given by the Russians, and mentioned in the Statement, could be honoured.

I was glad to hear that British police officers have already entered Kosovo and are beginning to investigate the war crimes. No doubt this will be an extremely large job. It is essential that the resources should be brought in as early as possible so that the evidence can be secured. Will the noble Baroness say what arrangements there will be for the storage of forensic evidence, and the taking of statements in accordance with the rules of evidence which apply before the international tribunal on former Yugoslavia so that whatever evidence is uncovered by our police officers can be presented ultimately to the War Crimes Tribunal without doubts about its authenticity?

I was also pleased to learn about the additional £50 million provided by the Government. Is there a budget for the overall operation of getting the refugees and displaced persons back into their homes by the winter, and looking after them until they are able to earn a living? Can we yet begin to work out the costs of rebuilding the houses and infrastructure of Kosovo?

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Avebury, for their support and the kind remarks they made about Her Majesty's Government; and most particularly about the British forces which have gone into Kosovo.

There has been a great deal of progress over the past few days, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, about the vindication of the Government's position over using air strikes as the primary means of bringing Mr Milosevic to the point of deciding to withdraw the Serbian forces from Kosovo. In particular we must all wish General Sir Michael Jackson and his forces well. They have done a splendid job so far and I am confident that they will continue to do so over the next few days. They will have a difficult task. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence made it clear that in many ways it is this stage of the operation that is so delicate and sensitive. As both noble Lords made clear, we have all seen on our television screens how high feelings are running on this issue. It has been heart-warming, even moving, to see the welcome accorded the NATO KFOR troops going into Kosovo. However, the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, is right: the reverse side of that coin can be very ugly feelings towards some Serb neighbours whom individuals may hold responsible in part, perhaps mistakenly, for some of the atrocities visited upon them, their neighbours and their families.

Over the next few days or so, I suspect that we shall find evidence of more appalling atrocities. This will not just he a case of word of mouth and the terrible descriptions that we have all heard over the past 10 weeks or so. I suspect that we shall see some truly dreadful footage on our televisions; and that will make feelings run very high indeed. The troops will also have to cope with the terrible problems which we know exist of booby traps, mines, and everything else. It is a very difficult time for them. I am sure that we wish them Godspeed in the difficult work that they are undertaking.

The noble Lord asked me whether Serb troops are withdrawing. Yes, they are withdrawing. As the Statement I repeated earlier made clear, the NATO troops are ahead of schedule in going into Kosovo. The troops have explicit instructions that they are there to enforce peace across the whole of Kosovo. The Statement makes clear that it is not just a question of looking after the interests of the Kosovo Albanians but of looking after everyone irrespective of ethnic origin. Some noble Lords may have heard, as I did last week, young British troops saying how clear that had been made to them. I think that there was a report on the "Today" programme. I found it reassuring that not only was the message being sent; it was being received by those troops as part of their remit.

As the Statement makes clear, of course we found difficulty with what happened at Pristina airport. But I understand that the MTA was the practical understanding of how the military would work on the ground: that it was a question of military logistics. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that it has not delayed the KFOR troops going in. Indeed, as I said, they are ahead of their schedule. In any case, as I understand it, they could not have gone into Pristina airport because the airport was at the time ringed by the VJ—that is, Serbian forces. All those issues have been discussed by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and his counterpart Mr Igor Ivanov. We have been assured in the way that the Statement makes clear. On the ground, General Sir Michael Jackson has reported that as a result of the discussions he had this morning he is optimistic that these matters will he sorted out. But the noble Lord is right: at one level there As a military discussion going on on the ground in Kosovo; but at another level there is a political discussion—as the Statement makes clear—between the United States and Russia about how the chain of command can be integrated.

If noble Lords read the UNSCR and the annexes to it they will see that the unified chain of command is part and parcel of the understanding reached in New York last week. Of course there are a number of different discussions going on about how to give that some practical impact as regards not just Pristina airport but the whole of Kosovo. Those discussions continue. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, is right: one model which can be looked at is the Bosnian model. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked about numbers. So far there are only 200 Russian troops in Pristina airport. On the ground there are about 14,000 NATO troops. We hope that that figure will rise over the next: few days and weeks to 45,000 of the KFOR force, of which some 13,000 are expected to come from the United Kingdom. We would like to see more Russian input into KFOR for the final arrangements and we very much hope that the Russians, who we always hoped would be part of the peacekeeping force, will take that opportunity. Indeed, I am sure that that is their intention.

The UNSCR also makes clear that it is the duty of everyone to co-operate with the War Crimes Tribunal. That "everyone" includes the government in Belgrade. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked particularly about the arrangements in that respect. The senior FCO official, David Gowan, has been appointed to be the Kosovo war crimes co-ordinator. lie will have responsibility for ensuring that our Government pass on to the ICTY as much information as possible. However. I hope that the teams which will be going—one from the United Kingdom and others from elsewhere in KFOR—will be able to make some progress on that front.

The humanitarian aid which my noble friend announced today will be going across the board in Kosovo, not solely to one part of the community, in order to help to improve the standards there. ] t will be part and parcel of the civil implementation arrangements which have been agreed, and to which reference was made in the Statement. Those civil arrangements include not only the return of the refugees, which is a UNHCR return, but I am sure that my colleagues in the Department for International Development will be planning a great deal of help. The arrangements will also include policing, de-mining, which is an important part of the work, and work as regards war crimes.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that surprise moves have long been the currency of Russian diplomatic and military tactics? Does she further agree that undertaking not to make surprise moves are their coins of currency and that in that context it ought to have been possible to foresee and forestall the unfortunate move of the Russians to Pristina airport? Furthermore, is she aware that Russian diplomatic and military strategists have always been taught of the need to be good chess players? Will she ensure that the NATO headquarters have an equally good supply of chess players?

My Lords, I am sure that there are many excellent chess players in NATO headquarters. As regards surprise moves, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, is right and that they are not without precedent, if I may put it that way. I believe that what has been agreed in a telephone conversation between my right honourable friend and the Russian Foreign Minister will hold up. It is that there should be prior agreement with NATO countries before any more Russian troops are moved into Kosovo. There is an agreement to carry through the principles in the Security Council resolution for the shape of the peacekeeping force. Of course, the Security Council resolution makes it absolutely clear that there must be a unified chain of command and that the objective is to create a single, whole Kosovo under international administration.

These points of principle have been agreed between my right honourable friend and his counterpart. But it is amazing, in view of what has happened during the past 10 weeks, how well the relationship with Russia has stood up. No one denies that it has undergone a good deal of strain, but it is remarkable that, throughout, the relationship remained remarkably robust, that the channels of communication have been opened and that we are in a position to act as joint partners in a peacekeeping force.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that poker is a more challenging game than chess and it is wrong to portray the swashbuckling antics of the Russian forces as some kind of publicity stunt? The truth is that a lack of clarity has been exposed between their foreign and defence ministries, which should be of serious concern to the NATO commanders who have to deal with the Russian authorities. Can my noble friend say whether General Zavarzin disobeyed NATO orders when he pulled his troops out of Bosnia and whether the SACEUR knew that he was pulling out his troops and directed them to stay?

Secondly, can my noble friend say something more about the stability pact to which she referred? This morning I returned from the Western European Union in Paris where the gossip in the corridors was that there is a jockeying for position as to where the headquarters of the distribution of those funds will be located, perhaps in Hungary, Greece or wherever. Can my noble friend assure me that wherever the office is located, lessons will be learnt from Bosnia where there was a slow and not particularly well directed disbursement of funds and that a more effective disbursement will be the case with this new pact?

My Lords, my noble friend invites me to make a judgment on the relative merits in the context of chess and poker. Having always been hopeless at both, I find it difficult. Bridge has always been my forte, if at all. It is important that we do not dwell on this issue. The whole House knows that the Russians have not found this easy and that it has been a difficult few days for them, too. I have no doubt that within Russia there are considerable diplomatic strains.

My noble friend asked me to dissect the reasons for what happened. The honest truth is that I do not know what happened or whether someone disobeyed someone else. However, I suggest to my noble friend that while such questions are interesting they are not helpful. What is helpful is to build on the understanding of my right honourable friend and his counterpart, which was reached at the weekend, and to ensure that that understanding, with its three principal aspects, will be nurtured and cherished in order to ensure that a relationship with Russia continues to the full over this period.

My noble friend asked about the stability pact which was launched on 10th June. It is important because it provides for a forum for discussion for countries in the region on how to operate on a range of issues. We believe that European integration will be faster and more inclusive as a result. All participants were consulted when the stability pact ideas were being worked out. When countries have told us that they have concerns about the pact, we have made the EU presidency aware of those concerns.

I know that there are difficulties in working out the detail and no doubt we shall report further to your Lordships on that, but I believe that Her Majesty's Government are satisfied that the stability pact provides us with a real means of meeting the interests of all the participants who are covered by it.

My Lords, I congratulate Her Majesty's Government on the selection and maintenance of their aim. But secondly, I congratulate the Royal Air Force on enabling us to go in with our ground forces and ensure that President Milosevic threw in his hand. Finally, I congratulate the ground forces who have moved in to secure peace.

The noble Baroness mentioned the interim administration. Will she assure us that it will use the Albanian leaders at all levels to assist in establishing peace in this war-torn area and encourage the restraint of extreme elements who are extremely embittered by what has happened to the local population?

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, for those remarks. I would also wish to add our thanks to all our allies, as I am sure he would. I commented a moment ago, to the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, upon the remarkable way in which our relationship with our friends in Russia has stood up. Within some countries, on occasions, relationships in NATO have been strained. There has been no secret about that; we have been quite open about it. Again, it is remarkable that the alliance has withstood so well over this period.

The noble Earl asked us to consider the political future of what is happening in Kosovo. We know that the Kosovo Albanians are a fractured group in many ways. Different groups speak for different parts of the ethnic community. We are encouraging them to realise the importance of rebuilding Kosovo and to move towards a process of free and fair elections.

It has been agreed that the political settlement will take account of the Rambouillet Accords. We have discussed such matters on a number of occasions in your Lordships' House. The mechanisms that are set up, the parliament or assembly, should reflect the views of all the ethnic groups in Kosovo. The OSCE are charged with the oversight of this. A great deal of work has to be done by them, including the setting up of an electoral register. It will not have escaped anybody's attention that a great number of the Kosovo Albanians have been robbed of their identity. There will be all kinds of matters of that nature to be dealt with including restoring people's identity papers to them, setting up electoral registers and ensuring that the whole panoply of the civil administration works. The OSCE will be looking forward to that and, I hope, to the elections, in due course.

My Lords, perhaps I may take the opportunity of congratulating the noble Baroness on the marvellous quick-witted cool with which, week after week, she handles questions on this very complicated matter. We admire her very much for that. I wanted to say that last week but I was unable to get in.

I have several questions for the noble Baroness which I hope she will take in good part, as she always does. First, during the original Statement which she repeated she mentioned that in some way we will rely on the support of the KLA. Is it not the case that the United Nations resolution requires, among other things, the disarmament of the KLA? Will that be achieved and has its disarmament started yet?

Secondly, while we are busy congratulating ourselves on a great victory, is it not the case that when this operation started, the idea was to remove Milosevic; but he is still there as large as life, indeed larger than he ever was? Finally, with regard to the political problems of the future, the noble Baroness very rightly pointed out that a great deal needs to be done in running any kind of democratic election when we do not even have an electoral register and when people's identities are very much in question following the atrocities triggered by the KLA in the first place.

Finally, is it not the case that the United Nations resolution specifically refers to the disarming of the KLA and that, therefore, the KLA's part in what the United Nations and NATO are doing must be pretty suspect—that is, until they have been properly disarmed?

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, for his kind words. I know he has very strong feelings about this issue. He has been very kind in the way in which he has put his questions.

However, we were not congratulating ourselves upon a victory. The Statement of my right honourable friend makes clear that the time for congratulations will come only when we have ensured that the refugees are able to return to their homes in safety. We have not completed that job. We are only part of the way through—an important part, it is true, but we are nowhere near completion of the task we set ourselves among the objectives.

I remind the noble Earl that one of those objectives was not the removal of President Milosovic. Your Lordships have asked me on a number of occasions whether his removal was, I believe the words used were, "one of the war aims". I have told your Lordships on a number of occasions that, much as we believe that Serbia will be better off without Mr Milosevic, that is a matter for the people of Serbia. It has not been one of our war aims to remove him from power.

The noble Lord specifically asked about the question of the KLA. Perhaps I may quote from paragraph 15 of the SCR. It states:

"the KLA and other armed Kosovo Albanian groups [must] end immediately all offensive actions and comply with the requirements for demilitarisation as laid down by the head of the international security presence, in consultation with the Special Representative of the Secretary-General."

I know that the noble Earl is very concerned about this point. I hope that spelling it out in that way makes quite explicit to the noble Earl the requirements of the UNSCR as regards its demilitarisation.

My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Baroness for giving fuller and more regular Statements on Kosovo. I look forward to hearing more over the coming weeks, because it is not yet over. However, could she undertake to consult with colleagues about giving us a fuller humanitarian Statement? After all, the United Nations are just as accountable as our own Armed Forces and diplomats. We need, for example, to have an up-to-date account on how the UNHCR will manage to receive refugees both in neighbouring states and in Kosovo. Will it be the lead agency or will we see the office of co-ordination of humanitarian affairs play a more active role? The noble Baroness may not be able to answer that question now.

Finally, I also thank the noble Baroness for the statement of the new contribution from the Department for International Development. I know that will be warmly received by the refugees as and when it arrives in material form.

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, for his congratulations on the extra aid. I am sure we are all very pleased that the Secretary of State at the Department for International Development has been able to secure it.

The DfID produces each day a statement about the numbers of displaced people. I refer to those who have gone to the camps in Macedonia, Montenegro and Albania and, indeed, those who have been airlifted out of the whole region. I do not know whether the noble Lord has access to such statements but they are readily available. They are usually accompanied by an update of the latest humanitarian relief received not just from the United Kingdom but from all the countries which have been concerned to co-ordinate over humanitarian relief. I am sure that if the noble Earl contacts the DfID, he will be able to receive such updates.

However, I take the point that what he really wants is for us to have a fuller debate in your Lordships' House on that subject. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, also indicated his desire to have more of a debate about the whole of this issue, of which I am sure the humanitarian aid issues would be part. I do not have the authority at the Dispatch Box to say that I think that would be a good idea, but I am sure it will be sorted out by the usual channels in their usual efficient way.

My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House a little more about the setting up of a unified civilian authority in Kosovo? I understand that the United Nations resolution under which it will be set up is our sole legal basis for being there at all. Therefore, everything depends upon getting it right. How far has the planning proceeded in the construction of that authority? What relations are intended between it and NATO on the one hand and the Russian force on the other; whether it remains of a joke-size like now or becomes a more serious matter?

My Lords, the UN Under Secretary-General, Vieira de Mello, has been appointed by the Secretary-General as his special representative on Kosovo as an interim measure. There is no decision as to the long-term appointment, but an interim appointment has already been made.

The UN will lead, devolving certain tasks to other agencies who have particular expertise to ensure success in meeting its objectives. The European Commission will take the lead on economic reconstruction and, as I indicated a few moments ago, the OSCE will deal with civic society and the election arrangements. The head of mission will be accountable to the Secretary-General of the UN and to the Security Council. Therefore, the point made by the noble Lord about integrating others into the arrangements will be covered by the arrangements of reporting and accountability.

We believe that the key is to get the civil implementation structures established quickly so that the military can progressively hand over responsibility. I am sure that is an aim to which all your Lordships would adhere. The priorities are policing, which is a United Nations lead; secondly, the war crimes and we have already spoken about how vital it is that the ICTY personnel get into Kosovo quickly and they are already working with KFOR; and, thirdly, de-mining, which is a very important point and KFOR will clear mines and unexploded ordnance to the extent needed by the forces deployed throughout Kosovo. Our colleagues in the DfID will be assisting with the de-mining effort and working with the UN and NGOs. There is then the lead that will be taken by the UNHCR in the refugee returns.

Those are the main priorities that the civic implementation plan sets itself.

My Lords, if I understood the noble Baroness correctly, she suggested that it is not helpful for us to explore any further the question of the Russian seizure of Pristina airport. With respect, I beg to differ with her. That event holds potential for future trouble in view of the light that it throws on Russian attitudes and concerns. It is therefore important that it should be satisfactorily and quickly resolved.

Since this coup is entirely characteristic of President Yeltsin, and since the international agreements and the United Nations resolution do not spell out a clear role for Russian forces, it is surprising that this event was not anticipated by NATO. The noble Baroness said that our forces could not have gone in before the Russians arrived because the Yugoslav forces were still surrounding the airport. Is she suggesting that if we had landed a battalion of paratroopers on the airport at that time, they would have been forcibly resisted by the Yugoslav forces despite the fact that the international agreements had already been signed and the United Nations resolution passed? Or is she suggesting that the Yugoslav forces were in complicity with the Russian forces whereas they would not have been with ours?

My Lords, I did not suggest for a moment that we should not hasten to resolve the issue of Pristina airport. Indeed, the Statement I repeated on behalf of my right honourable friend made it clear that discussions took place this morning on that very issue and that General Sir Michael Jackson is optimistic about resolving it. The issue that I suggested it was not entirely helpful for my noble friend Lord Ponsonby to air was why this happened in the first place.

I do not know the operational military instructions of the Russians. The noble Lord seems to suggest that we should have anticipated this happening. One might anticipate all sorts of things. I do not know whether or not it was anticipated. As I understand it, the airport was surrounded by VJ troops. The noble Lord suggests that perhaps we should have taken them on. But to put ourselves in so much confrontation was not necessarily the sensible course of action. The sensible thing was to do what was done; that is, to ensure that this was resolved properly and constructively through sensible discussion in the way that we have resolved all our other difficulties, not by possibly precipitating or provoking some kind of action.

This is an extremely delicate, difficult task in getting not only the NATO countries to co-ordinate over the KFOR, but ensuring that Russia too has the confidence to be part of KFOR. We very much hope that there will be more Russian troops, but the noble Lord understands that this is an extremely difficult task and must be undertaken with due diplomatic sensitivity.

moved Amendment No. 5:

As I indicated during discussion on the previous group of amendments, some of the issues relate to this group of amendments and some to the following group. There are only three issues relating to this group; the function of the authority, the size of the authority and matters of election. It is a little difficult to disentangle them before having a discussion on the other matters. Nevertheless, I shall try.

Our view is set out very clearly in the White Paper and, indeed, was clear when the Government initially set out their views on the future of London government. This authority should be small, streamlined and strategic in focus. We do not want there to be a detailed policy-making function in the assembly. Its function is one of scrutiny. We are not creating committees in the normal sense of a local authority or in the manner of the former GLC. We therefore consider that a small authority of 25 members will be sufficient to enable it to perform effectively its scrutiny and investigative role without becoming unwieldy and excessively bureaucratic. Were the assembly to take on the type of executive powers found in other authorities, different arguments would arise.

The question then arises of whether 25 can be sufficiently representative of the population of London. It is clear from all the analyses of voting systems that the smaller number of direct first-past-the-post seats, the less representative is the result. We therefore suggested that, as in Scotland and Wales, whatever the total—and we are proposing 25—there should be a mixture of directly elected seats and a corrective mechanism to ensure that the views across London were represented in the assembly. We therefore suggest 14 and 11 to make up the full 25.

Were we to make the number 33, as suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, it would not be possible to have a representative body if it was all done on a first-past-the-post basis.

Having taken the decision to create a small, streamlined authority and an authority sufficiently representative of the whole population, we then had to decide where the boundaries would be in the directly elected assembly. That was a matter for the Local Government Commission and not primarily for ministerial decision. The boundaries of the directly elected proportion of the 25-member assembly were therefore chosen on as subjective a basis as possible. That means that they cannot represent every London borough, nor is there a direct relationship between a grouping of London boroughs.

The academic work that has been done indicates that it is possible to achieve a representative reflection in a 25-member assembly. Professor Patrick Dunleavy and Dr Helen Margetts have carried out extensive research on the most appropriate voting system for London's assembly. That research is in the Library here. It shows that with 25 members it is possible to have a broadly proportional outcome.

The argument for having a larger figure is one which states that there should be a larger assembly because it would be undertaking functions more akin to a normal local government structure, which we wish to get away from, or an argument that areas of London that are self-identified in terms of boroughs or existing identities should be directly represented. That would mean there would have to be well above 40 before getting a first-past-the-post system which, at the same time, reflected the balance of opinion across London with some accuracy.

The combination of a streamlined assembly and an assembly that represents the balance of opinion across London gives a split of approximately that which we are proposing. A body of 40 would not significantly improve that position, certainly if it was all first past the post. If it was a similar split, it would not give a better representation than the split at 25 and it would be a more unwieldy body performing the central function we have set out which has been endorsed by the people of London.

We therefore resist the proposition that it should be extended to 40 and also the suggestion by the noble Baroness, Lade Carnegy of Lour, that there should be 33 members who would directly represent the boroughs. That has the potential additional disadvantage that a direct representative of the borough would have some of the disadvantages of an indirect representative in that the carve-up would not be strategic but would be on the balance of interest between the boroughs. We want an authority that looks at London as a whole and not primarily through the eyes of representatives of the boroughs. We therefore hope that the amendment will not be pursued.

I listened with care to what the Minister said. Perhaps I may start by dealing with the points with which I agree. He said that the Government want an authority which is small, streamlined, strategic and focused. I believe that those were his exact words and I agree with that entirely. However, "small" is a relative term—25 is small; 40 may be slightly larger but in my view, it is still small. Therefore, I cannot accept the argument that 40 is too large and 25 is fine. For an assembly representing the whole of Greater London—7 million members—40 is small, and rightly so.

My noble friends and I do not pretend that there is any special magic about 40. If the Minister were to say that he cannot accept 40 but he will accept 38 or 42, then I expect that we should graciously accept. I do not want to argue strongly about 40 and no more and no less, but it is indicative of the size which we feel will still be streamlined, will certainly be strategic and, it is hoped, will be focused.

It also needs to be representative, as far as anything can be, of a large diverse population such as that of London. It is extremely important that, as far as possible, all Londoners feel that the assembly fairly represents the mix in London of gender, ethnicity, geographical location and so on.

The Minister said that he did not believe that 40 members elected by a first-past-the-post system could possibly achieve that. I agree entirely. It will come as no surprise to him that we do not propose that they should all be elected by first-past-the-post. As he will know, we shall be proposing that none of them should be elected by first-past-the-post. He is quite right that the next group of amendments are connected with this group because we are talking about the size of the authority and the way in which it is to be elected. The two go together.

Our objection to the previous set of amendments was not in relation to the magic number of 33 but that they should be tied to and come from the boroughs, which happen to number 33. That is the objection with which we have dealt. We believe it should be the larger number if it is to be properly representative and also, if the members are able to carry out the range of duties expected of them. I understand as well as anyone what the assembly is proposed to be. I note that it is not to be a local authority with executive powers and so on. I understand that it is to be a scrutinising body. But I hope that it will be the focus of a lot of interest and attention from a wide range of interest groups in London. Of course they will focus primarily on the mayor, and rightly so. But they will also wish to talk to, lobby, relate to and engage the interest of assembly members.

At this stage, we have no idea at all what administrative support assembly members are to receive. But even with a reasonable level of administrative support, it will be extremely difficult for assembly members to carry out their range of duties conscientiously, across the whole of London, with the wide range of interests involved.

There is no magic number but a greater number, such as 40, would necessarily make the sharing of that burden a little easier. Perhaps the Minister will tell us about the responses to the Government's White Paper which asked specific questions about the proposed size of the assembly, while making it clear that it should be small, strategic and so on. Sadly, I forgot to look up the figures before I came, but I believe I am right to say—and perhaps the Minister will confirm it—that the greater number of responses which referred to the size of the assembly all suggested that it should be larger than 25. I accept that some suggested it should be very much larger, and we do not share that view. However, I suspect that 40 was nearer the number suggested in those responses that referred to size than is 25. I suspect that the Minister will tell us week after week that we are responding to the wishes of Londoners. Therefore, I play that back to him and ask him whether that is the case when dealing with the size of the assembly.

However, as I said earlier, the most important reason is to enable there to be enough assembly members, although not too many, to carry out their duties while remaining strategic and focused and, above all, in order for them to be representative of London's very diverse community.

This group of amendments contains several quite separate issues which perhaps should have been dealt with separately. However, the matter to which I wish to refer briefly is that covered by Amendment No. 8. That amendment refers to Clause 2(4) which states:

"The Assembly constituencies shall be the areas, and shall be known by the names, specified in an order made by the Secretary of State".

As the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, knows well, some of us feel that it is wrong to have subordinate legislation governing important matters rather than having primary legislation. I should have thought that the constituencies in the future Greater London should be in primary legislation which is brought before Parliament for Parliament to consider in detail and to amend if necessary. But if we have an order made by the Secretary of State, we must either accept or reject it. We have no detailed say in the matter.

A good compromise is covered by Amendment No. 8 which refers to,

"following a review carried out by the Local Government Commission under the terms of Schedule 1 to this Act'.

I should prefer to see it spelt out on the face of the Bill. As we are at an early stage of the Bill. I hope that we shall have an opportunity to replace the prospect of an order by the Secretary of State by some detailed provisions in the Bill.

A number of points were raised after my first intervention. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that, as I pointed out on an earlier group of amendments, the boundaries have been drawn up on the recommendation of the Local Government Commission. Therefore, they are not a political fix, so to speak, by the Secretary of State. The Government have accepted the Local Government Commission's recommendations in relation to the boundaries as they stand. Putting that into effect by order is the normal procedure in relation to local government boundaries, as the noble Lord will know.

Will the Minister explain to us why, therefore, that is to be finalised by an order by the Secretary of State over which Parliament has no control except to say yes or no?

If I am incorrect, I shall write to the noble Lord but as I understand it, all changes in local government boundaries are implemented by order of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State must accept or query the boundaries as suggested by the Local Government Commission. In this case, we accepted its proposals and we shall carry them through by order. I shall ensure that the noble Lord receives any further clarification which may be required.

I should tell the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that I do not have the numbers off the top of my head or instantly recoverable. There were a number of responses which suggested that there should be more than 25. But there was also a significant number, not least from the business community, whose views were that we must ensure that the assembly is small and streamlined. Our view is that 25 is the appropriate number. It is certainly true that in the responses others took a different view. Some took the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, and others took a different view. In order to achieve the object of establishing a new, unique structure of government for London, we have always taken the view that the assembly should be small and that 25 is the appropriate number. I hope that the noble Baroness will not pursue this matter, at least at this point.

Perhaps not at this point. I read into the Minister's comment on the Green Paper that some respondents wanted more members and some fewer, so the Government have come up with a figure in the middle. It would be interesting to know for a future stage whether the figure of 25 received support.

I took also from the Minister's argument that the electoral system was dictating the figure of 25 members. The Minister did not directly answer the points made by my noble friend and myself about the functioning of the assembly—other than to say that 40 members would be unwieldy. I am sure that 40 members could be controlled by any half-way competent chair. Forty is not all that different from 25.

My noble friend forcefully made the point that we are concerned that all Londoners and all London interests are properly represented. We are concerned also that assembly members have a job that is practicable. I am not sure whether the muttering—I do not mean that unkindly—of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, was on my point about numbers. I am absolutely sure that in dealing with his members in Haringey, which is more of the order of 60 than 40, the noble Lord is totally competent and has them all exactly where he wants them.

Perhaps I could clarify the mumbling. I was trying to understand why, although 40 was not thought a very different number from 25, it was nonetheless preferable because it was larger. I suspect that the figure of 40 was advanced because it fits much more neatly with the principles and requirements of the single transferable vote—which is, I gather, the hors-d'oeuvre up to which we are building. In which case, can the noble Baroness explain why it is appropriate to structure the assembly to fit the convenience of an electoral system, rather than meet the needs of the functions of the assembly that is being created?

We would be happy to accept 42, 39 or even 35. We would not accept 33 members, for the reasons given in the previous debate. We do not want members tied directly to London boroughs. We believe that would work against the strategic nature of the authority. I apologise if I gave the wrong impression, in suggesting that there is not much difference between 40 and 25 members. I was speaking in the context of whether or not the assembly would be unwieldy. I do not regard 40 members as unwieldy or 25 as particularly more "wieldy"—if there is such a word.

This is a serious point and not an hors-d'oeuvre to the main course of a different electoral system. All my noble friends on these Benches tonight and many of your Lordships have said that they are not theologians with regard to electoral systems. They are not a subject that attracts us as a technical matter. What is of importance is good representation and good government. As I made clear to the Minister privately at a meeting last week at which a number of your Lordships and many officials were present, we are concerned about this matter entirely separately from how assembly members are elected. It is not that we feel compelled to argue points so that we may argue the next group of amendments. I dare say that we will reflect on the issue and may return to it. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 6:

I thought that STV would be debated under Amendment No. 14. However, as it has been mentioned now in such detail, perhaps I may say a few words at this stage. I was born and brought up in a country where the single transferable vote was the system. When I first came to the United Kingdom, I thought that it was better than the existing system in this country. But, as time has gone by, I have decided that it is very definitely not comparable. I strongly support the first-past-the-post system.

The single transferable vote does not produce the candidate that most people like; it merely gives the result. The elected party is the one which is least generally disliked. It is a totally negative form of election whereby, even if you do not get your choice, you can, out of pique, use the system to go against whoever you want to avoid being elected. I really do not support STV. I lived in Australia long enough to vote under that system. Indeed, the complexity of it whereby you will have many candidates produces a further Problem. I feel that this is yet another push. I do not go along with those in this House and in that party generally who support proportional representation, STV or any old system at all except first-past-the-post. I do not know whether my remarks are suitable at this point or whether they would be more suitable under the debate on Amendment No. 14, but I shall not repeat them. I wanted to make the point very strongly that I oppose the single transferable vote.

There is a large number of amendments in this group, some of which raise certain issues which have not yet been mentioned. Nevertheless, it is clear that those on the Liberal Democrat Benches wish to ensure that the system of voting for the assembly is STV. Despite the fact that he claimed that he had never made such a speech before in his life, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, did not make a bad fist of advocating the STV system. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, gave it fairly short shrift and pointed out the main objection to it; namely, that at best you get everyone's second choice and in some cases everyone's third choice, depending on the size of constituency and the way that the votes fall.

I am slightly concerned. We on these Benches often get accused of not having a coherent approach to the devolution agenda in general. However, being a bit of an anorak myself—or, nerd, which I believe was the term used by the noble Lord, Lord Tope—I was still awake late last night and watched the broadcast on the European elections. I must be totally objective because I think he is the only member of the parliamentary Liberal Party who is not actually running for election at this point, but I am pretty confident that I heard Menzies Campbell making it absolutely clear that they favoured the additional member system, in which the Liberals joined with us in Scotland on the convention. He said that the system in Scotland and Wales had been entirely successful in that it allowed people to maintain the link with the constituency but that, on the top-up list, it made sure that the number of members eventually returned reflected the total proportion of votes. If the additional membership system is good enough for the Liberals in Scotland and in Wales, I fail to understand why the Liberals in London would wish to revert to an atavistic attachment to STV. I applaud their consistency in this matter in some respects, but they appear to have abandoned it in relation to other aspects of constitutional change in this House.

I, too, heard the words of the Liberal Member. But did the Minister then hear Mrs. Margaret Beckett say immediately afterwards that she had never been in favour of proportional representation? I wonder where the Minister stands on that.

I believe that my right honourable friend was responding to the question as to whether the results of the European elections had set back the campaign for first-past-the-post in relation to Westminster. She made her own particular view known on that issue. Indeed, those of us who know her will have heard her rather forthrightly express that view many times. She did not express a view in relation to London or, indeed, to Scotland and Wales on that occasion. As noble Lords will know, the Government as a whole have thought it appropriate that, in relation to the new parliament and the new assembly—and, of course, in relation to the GLA—an additional member system which maintains, on the one hand, the constituency link while, on the other, ensures that the total balance is more proportionate, is an appropriate innovation in our constitution at that level. That is an entirely different argument as to whether that should be the system which defines the Government of the United Kingdom. That is no doubt one to which the Liberal Democrats would wish us to return very rapidly; and we have to watch that space.

However, I had better return to London rapidly. The additional member system proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Tope—

It was probably a slip of the tongue, but I would not wish it to go on the record. It is the Minister who is proposing the additional member system, although he is now suggesting that I proposed it. That is not the case.

I apologise to the noble Lord. I was so persuaded by my own argument I assumed that he had been persuaded too. The noble Lord advocates an STV system. I thought I heard him mention four or five constituencies, presumably in the context of a 25-member assembly. That would probably enable an STV system to work adequately. The London constituencies are pretty huge. Even with a system of 40 members—as advocated just now—the constituencies would have to be pretty huge to enable STV to work. The degree of identity that could be achieved with those constituencies would be extremely limited. Therefore the constituency geographic identity—which we seek in our suggestions for representation—would not be met by creating four or five STV-based constituencies across London. That is much better met by the 14 directly elected posts under the first-past-the-post representation which we propose. However, we recognise—as we would with any size of assembly so far suggested—that that could lead to a serious distortion. We need to correct that distortion—in the same way as we have in Wales and Scotland—by introducing the top-up system.

The noble Lord suggested that this was a way of ensuring that the party would control the choice. With the system at present in place the party controls the choice. In Scotland and Wales the party controls the choice of candidates put before the electorate. The electorate then have the ability to decide whether or not to support the candidates put before them. That is the case with any of the systems that we propose. It allows for a potential independent element.

The issue of open lists as opposed to closed lists has detained the Chamber in a different context for a considerable amount of time. However, in an additional member system as distinct from a pure list system—as we operated during the European elections—the strength of any argument which the Committee may have against an open system is much weaker because there is still a constituency base determining the majority of candidates, as in Scotland and Wales. Therefore I do not think that the historic arguments used by this Chamber in relation to open lists apply to the same degree in this case.

I believe that the burden of the feeling in this Chamber is not to pursue the STV option—although I have no doubt that the Liberal Democrats will continue to do so—but to pursue a system of representation envisaged when we put forward the previous legislation for the referendum and now made manifest in this Bill. As this process was carried out in Scotland and Wales, I do not think it will be a problem for Londoners to be faced with two votes in relation to the assembly elections. That did not confuse the electors of Scotland and Wales and it is hardly likely to confuse the electors of London. Nor is it likely to create two tiers of member, as the noble Lord implied—I think he then rapidly retreated from that view—as I believe it is clear in Scotland and Wales that there is no distinction between the functions and the legitimacy of the two different methods of election to the Parliament and the Assembly. There is no reason why there should be that distinction in London.

Before the noble Lord leaves that point I hope I may suggest to him that the Government would be wise before they proceed any further with this system—which I gather is identical to the one used for the Scottish Parliament—to find out what effect it has had on the political parties and whether they are completely happy with it. The Government should also find out from the Scots Parliament whether the two sets of members will in fact be equal because there has already been a big argument about that in the Scots Parliament. It has been decided that the two sets will have different levels of expenses—I think I am right in saying that—and there has been trouble. The Government would be wise not to gloss over this matter and think that because nothing has been said in the newspapers about the whole matter going wrong everything is all right. I can give them one instance of where within a political party the system has worked extremely unfairly. The Minister may find that that is the case in his own party and in other parties. It may be wise to take that into account for the future of the system. It is best to arrange it so that it works out as fairly as possible.

In response to the first point of the noble Baroness, the system is effectively the same—although the proportions are somewhat different—as in Scotland and Wales. I have no doubt that there are a number of teething problems in both those countries and there will be a number of teething problems in London. We are talking about creating new institutions with a new range of powers and a new basis of legitimacy. However, I do not believe that any fundamental problem experienced by the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly—despite the problems they have—relates to the fact that they allegedly have a two-tier level of membership. I do not believe that that is a huge problem although there may be some difficulties at the margin.

As to whether political parties are satisfied with the respective results, given that in neither case was an overall majority won by any party, none of the political parties will be entirely happy. They will find other reasons to explain why they feel that the system does not entirely reflect their interests. The idea that we have created assemblies and parliaments with two tiers of members is erroneous and will be erroneous as far as London is concerned.

I did not mean that the political parties did not think the system was fair on them. I refer to the fact that the people who get elected to the assembly may not relate to the votes that are cast. I could give the noble Lord an example which may be helpful although I shall not do so now. It would be wise for the Government to talk to the political parties about how the system has worked. I refer to the mechanics of the system. Various details could be stipulated which would make the system clearer.

Before my noble friend responds to the amendment, I should like to make two points. First, I do not believe that the Minister has responded to the point of representation of different interests as an advantage of a proportional system like STV which was put forward by my noble friend. The great advantage of STV is that you can vote for any candidate from any party in any order you wish. I take an extreme example of a woman who has never had the chance to vote for a woman representative. There are women in England who have never had the chance to vote for a woman to represent them. That woman can, if she wishes, vote only for women representatives, taking those from her own party first and then perhaps those from another party. Someone from an ethnic minority can do the same with regard to his choice of candidate. The evidence from countries where STV is used shows that any proportional system tends to assist the election of women but STV is particularly effective in assisting with the election of women and those from ethnic minorities. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, did not respond to that point when my noble friend mentioned it.

Further, I disagree with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes. I am rather a "nerd" on this subject and I shall not bore the Committee by describing the whole system. We elect all our committee members at a national level on STV. The votes are counted from those who have the most votes downwards. Anyone who has more votes than he or she needs to get elected—that is, more than their quota—finds that the excess votes trickle down. Therefore the most popular people are elected first. It is not a case of the least popular people being elected first. The people who are elected are those who have accumulated the most votes. People do not necessarily understand how the voting system works. It favours those who have the most support, not those with less support.

I cannot let that pass. When I was in Australia at Easter I was shown the size of the single transferable vote list for the Senate. It was as big as an enormous tablecloth. That is the kind of thing one gets when matters reach a ridiculous level.

I was elected to the General Dental Council on the basis described by the noble Baroness. That still does not alter my view. I do not think that I was necessarily the most popular person but I was fortunate enough to be elected on a single transferable vote when, at a certain time, there was a need to elect one dentist to represent general practitioners. I am not convinced and my arguments still stand.

I am sure that when the noble Baroness was elected to that committee she was one of its most respected members.

With due respect to both august bodies, I am not sure that the internal committee of the Liberal Democrat Party or the General Dental Council are good models for how we should run London in the future.

As to the noble Baroness's first point, I strongly recognise the need to ensure that minorities are represented.

I really must stop talking about women as a minority. I am talking about getting elected to elected bodies people who are not normally elected. That is the point I was making. STV gives people the chance to do that.

I accept that. I thought we were talking about the under-represented part of the community, whether they are women, ethnic minorities or other minorities. It depends on the size of the STV constituency whether or not an STV system makes that easier. If political parties are committed to greater representation of women or ethnic minorities, a topping-up list system is a very effective way of increasing their representation. That is an opportunity the political parties in London will have through the London-wide election lists.

The Minister began by suggesting that there was some possible difference of view between myself and Menzies Campbell about the benefits of PR systems. That is a conceptual impossibility. There is no difference between us at all. We believe that any genuine proportional system is better than the first-past-the-post system but that some proportional systems are better than others. That is a perfectly clear and consistent view. It has always been and remains our preferred option to use the single transferable vote in multi-member constituencies. Where that is not achievable—either because of an intransigent government or for other reasons—then an alternative proportional system is certainly still preferable to first-past-the-post. If we fail to get into the Bill the best electoral system, we will undoubtedly end up supporting the second or third best, or whatever grade one gives to the system proposed. At least that will produce a proportional result in spite of the defects that I and my noble friend have spoken to. Although my noble friend tells me rather late in the day that she is a "nerd" on these subjects—I wonder if "nerd" is a parliamentary term—I am sure she could have moved the amendment far better than I.

The Minister made a number of points. He referred to larger constituencies. That is certainly true. "Constituency" is an electoral term. I accept that we are talking more accurately about sub-regional areas in the London context. I accept that they are much larger areas. We spent some time earlier arguing very strongly that this is a strategic authority whose members must take a strategic view. The word "parochial" was used. It is not a word I would wish to use, particularly in relation to boroughs, but too local, too parochial a view would at best inhibit a truly strategic view. That is the argument for having larger constituencies—sub-regional areas, if you like—represented by a number of members who will work together for the interest, where appropriate, of that larger area, but still large enough to have a strategic impact on the future of London. As one would expect, there are fierce debates, even rivalries, quite properly, between east London, west London, north London and south London. That will continue. We do not want to make it into too small an area.

The Minister said that I referred to the possibility—I certainly meant to say it—of the danger of two types of members of the assembly emerging and that I then retreated from it. I do not think I retreated from it. It is a fear I have. I expressed the hope that it will not happen; that is not the same as retreating. I hope that it will not happen; I fear that it might. We heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour. She indicated that if the Scottish experience is borne out and continues, that may well happen. I can envisage arguments about expenses at an early stage. Constituency members will argue that they need higher expenses because they have constituents to deal with; London members will argue that their constituents are the whole population of London. They both will be right.

I hope very much that such arguments will not happen. I do not want to see that emerge—I do not want to be a part of that in any way—but it is a fear I have. It is a situation we could avoid by adopting the eminently sensible and particularly democratic system—which will apply very well in the small strategic authority for London we are debating—of the single transferable vote in multi-member constituencies.

I am not sure whether the Minister expressed a hope or an expectation when he said that we will return to this subject again. I do not wish to disappoint him but, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 14:

It is on occasions like this that I miss my noble friend Lord Plant of Highfield, who would take us through the intricacies of the various systems of voting, as he did some years ago when he convinced me of the importance of the supplementary vote system. I am sure that the same arguments still apply. The reason that we have proposed the supplementary vote system here is not that it is cheaper, or that it is simpler for Londoners to understand, or even that it would give a better result for the Labour Party, as some have alleged. The reason is that the supplementary vote system, as distinct from the alternative vote system, could in certain circumstances, if candidates are ranked one to five, lead to a situation where the third or fourth most popular candidate would in fact win. In the STV system this applies for the second, third and fourth elected candidates rather than the first. But here we are discussing the alternative vote system.

The supplementary vote system, where you vote for your first and second choice, is a two-ballot decision all in one. Whereas under the French system you do not know who the candidates will be in the second ballot, you will know who all the candidates will be in the election for the mayor. If the second votes are transferred, the system would give a majority to the successful candidate. In this the first election of a mayor of London, with a directly elected executive role, it is important that the method of election attunes itself as clearly as possible to the expressed views of the electorate. We want a strong mayor with whom people can identify, and whom they feel they have chosen. If we were to go on to the alternative vote system, under which in certain circumstances it would be possible for a third or fourth preference to be elected, that could seriously undermine the credibility and the mandate of the mayor. We do not believe that that is the best way forward.

I accept that the noble Baroness considers, as do various political parties in Australia, that the alternative vote system, with all its slight perversities, gives everyone a say, but it does not necessarily result in the election of the candidate who is the most popular and has the strongest mandate. The absolute objective of any system for introducing a mayor of London is that the population who voted in London can believe that whatever the system, the most popular candidate was elected. That could be jeopardised by a full alternative vote system. I ask the noble Baroness to consider that point and not to press the amendment.

The Minister wished for the attendance of the noble Lord, Lord Plant. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Plant, might be on our side of the argument and not on the Minister's side. Furthermore, the noble Lord should not tempt me to argue about the effects of STV by making inaccurate statements about it. However, I shall ignore that challenge. I certainly would never allege that the Government had chosen a system of election because they thought it might benefit them.

The perversity of the supplementary voting system arises when, for example, four candidates have fought an election and have come very close together in that election. The votes of the candidate with the fewest votes would be redistributed, but the people who had voted for that candidate might have no sensation that their second choice had been considered because they might have given their second vote to the person who is ultimately elected. The person who is ultimately elected can be elected with less than 50 per cent of the poll. That is the disadvantage of the system.

I do not think it is worth going into a long argument about this issue. I would simply point out that in the 1930s a Bill was introduced into this Parliament to provide the supplementary vote system for elections in this country. During the passage of the Bill the method was changed from SV to AV and the Bill was abandoned after a disagreement with the House of Lords. Indeed, AV is also used for the election of the Irish President, a person who almost inevitably commands the support and respect of the majority of his or her countrymen. However, perhaps this is not the time to go into all the intricacies of the system. I suspect that we may well come back to this amendment. Therefore, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

I have to inform the Committee that if Amendment No. 18 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 19.

moved Amendment No. 31:

These amendments would prohibit a person from standing simultaneously as a candidate for both mayor and the assembly. I agree with the noble Baroness that it would be unacceptable for someone actually to serve simultaneously both as mayor and as an assembly member. The Bill makes provision to prevent such circumstances arising. Clause 4(7) specifies that:

"The persons who are to be returned as—

(a) the Mayor, and

(b) the constituency members,

must be determined before it is determined who are to be returned as the London members".

This means that in those circumstances where someone has stood for mayor and is also on the party list and has gained enough votes to win both elections, that person would be returned as mayor and discounted from the allocation of London member seats. If someone was returned for an assembly constituency he or she would also drop out from the London member seat election.

In addition, if someone was elected as mayor and as an assembly constituency member, the Bill makes provision for action should a vacancy occur in the constituency seats. However, it would be heavy-handed and serve no practical purpose to prevent people standing as a candidate in both elections. I can well imagine a situation in which the party's leading lights would wish to contest both the mayoral and assembly elections. If those candidates lost the mayoral election it would be perverse to have them already rendered ineligible for consideration as assembly members. I would therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

I thank the noble Baroness for her explanation. I believe I understand what she is saying—that if standing for mayor and as one of the London members, a person would automatically come off the list after being elected as mayor. I understand that, but I think the situation is different if the person is standing as a constituency member. If that person were to be elected mayor, then as I understand it there would automatically have to be a by-election, and that is what we are trying to suggest should not happen. I may perhaps have misunderstood and would be grateful if the noble Baroness could comment on the point.

My understanding is that the Bill prohibits anyone from standing in more than one assembly constituency, but no prohibition has been placed on standing both for the mayor and the assembly. There seems to be little reason to constrain individuals from doing that.

I have to confess that I do not agree with that, because one would be causing a by-election just as we are starting at the very beginning of it all. As I said, in America if a senator wants to stand as president, he has first to withdraw from being a senator. I would have thought that perhaps it would be more sensible for us to consider that as a pattern. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I may wish to pursue the matter at a later stage.

moved Amendment No. 37:

I was slightly taken aback by the apparent reference of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, to people who were failing to get publicity in advance of the closing date for nominations and people not knowing who was interested in standing. I should have thought that in some cases people are only too aware of who is interested in standing.

I have listened with great interest to the noble Baroness's explanation of the reason for these amendments, but I cannot feel that they would add value to the Bill. The amendments propose to place a requirement on the Registrar of Political Parties to register a political party which intends to contest the GLA election and which has applied to him for registration before 31st January, no later than 70 days before the date of an ordinary election. Ten weeks before the first Thursday in May would give a date in late February, giving the registrar effectively three weeks in which to register a late-arriving application.

While I am sure that that would not present problems for the registrar, given that his own aim is to decide straightforward applications within five days, I can see no need for such a requirement. It is certainly not justified by the registrar's performance so far. Even where the registrar has referred difficult or sensitive cases to the Advisory Committee on the Registration of Political Parties, there has been no significant delay in the registration process. Why, therefore, impose on the registrar a requirement so far in excess of his actual practice and which does not exist in respect of any other election? Admittedly the amendment does not include the proviso that failure would lay the registrar or the returning officer open to action; even so, I am bound to say that I doubt the value of the proposal.

The requirement is not therefore needed in practice. Nor has it been imposed in relation to any other election. It seems an odd proposal to modify the Registration of Political Parties Act to impose a time requirement on the registrar which exists in respect of no other election. For that reason alone I would oppose it.

I was similarly in some difficulty trying to understand why it was thought a good idea to have the party lists with the returning officer between eight and 12 weeks before the poll, when the normal time-scale for local elections would only call for their delivery four or five weeks before the poll. The time-scale for these matters is normally set out in election rules, rather than enshrined in primary legislation; and it is our intention, once Royal Assent to the Bill has been received, to lay before the House election rules based on the local government principal area rules.

No special time-scale was imposed on the submission of lists for the AMS elections conducted recently in Scotland and Wales for their national assemblies and I have not so far heard any compelling argument in favour of doing so for the GLA election.

Having heard the noble Baroness's explanation, I am still far from convinced either that this is a matter which needs to be dealt with by primary legislation or that it is a good idea. I therefore invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

I shall read what the Minister has said. My concern is with London. It is not what happened in Scotland and Wales, or in the European elections. I am concerned that we get it absolutely right for London. I should like to think that the noble Baroness agrees that that is the matter of most concern.

This new system is not unique—it has now been used three times—but the fact remains that it is completely different and new to London. Another point mentioned today by journalists in regard to the European elections is that it is believed that one of the reasons the Government did not do particularly well in Scotland, for example, is that some voters did not like the deals that resulted from the election of the Scottish Parliament. I merely mention that en passant. It is important for people to know in good time which candidates will be on the list. That might obviate the cause for such comment. However, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

I beg to move that the House be now resumed. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.15 p.m.

rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any proposals to reform the law and practice relating to adoption and fostering.

My Lords, we are all very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for asking this Unstarred Question tonight. I am very conscious that he is infinitely more knowledgeable on this subject than I am, but I put down my name to speak for three quite personal reasons. First, when I was in local government—I now realise that it was a long time ago—I was chairman of what was then known as a children's committee, which became an adoption agency. I was the first chairman of that body. I then realised what an immensely important but very valuable task it was.

Secondly, I know very well three couples who have adopted children. As to one of those couples who adopted those children as babies, I am godmother to one of them who is now an adult. One can see how tremendously successful they have been. Certainly, in at least two cases the prospects for those particular children would have been very poor indeed. As it is, no one would know—unless someone happened to ask—that they were not the natural children of the parents. It is very important to recognise that love is everywhere. You can love an adopted child, who is yours in law, just as much as a natural child—and, for all I know, sometimes a bit more. When it works it is a wonderful relationship.

My third reason for speaking tonight is the tremendous importance that I attach to support of the traditional family. For those children who do not have that benefit, if it is possible to find them an adoptive family it is a miracle, assuming that it works well.

As the noble Lord, Lord Meston, pointed out, one of the tragedies in the figures one sees is that the number of adoptions has fallen recently concurrently with the fact that there are now more children in care. Unfortunately so many children who spend a long time in care suffer from acute educational disadvantages and, sadly, end up in prostitution and homelessness. As patron of a special school which helps children with terrible educational problems. I visited recently and heard of a little girl aged nine who, I think that I am right in remembering, had had 40 different placements in her life. It is hardly surprising that the child was unable to learn. If one considers for five minutes what that child must have suffered, it is a terrible situation.

In this debate it is important that we address this point. My figures may not be correct. I am sure that the Minister will correct them. However, there are something like 87,500 children in care, four out of 10 of whom are under the age of 10; and one in 20 is a baby under one year. Although those figures may not be absolutely correct, the position is something like that. Children are in care for a variety of reasons. Some will unquestionably return to their families: they are in care for a specific reason for a short period of time, and will go back to the family. I do not suggest that all those children are suitable for adoption or fostering. But many will not return to their natural parents.

I am concerned that, as the noble Lord said, it takes over three years for an adoption to take place. One can imagine the feelings of the prospective adoptive parents; and the child may be old enough to know what is going on during this lengthy period. Perhaps the Minister will say something about the apparent—I should like to be corrected on this—somewhat anti-adoption culture among some social services departments. Many of those organisations need to undergo a culture change.

It would be interesting to hear comment, if it were possible, on the case of the couple who hoped to adopt two little girls and, quite improperly I agree, as it were kidnapped them because they were afraid they would be unable to adopt them. One has to ask this question. Whatever the outcome, if the two little girls are not adopted what are their prospects?

I sometimes think that social workers are looking for perfect parents. They simply will not find them. None of us is perfect. Most parents are good enough. That may be a general definition, but good enough is what many parents are; and they bring up children successfully. They make their mistakes, but who among us can say that we have never made a mistake as a parent? I certainly could not make that statement, and I do not know anyone with whom I have discussed the matter who could.

I read the interesting action plan to improve adoption services by the British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering. It makes a number of extremely valuable suggestions as to what might be done. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, has referred to them. I shall not repeat the points he made. Many children could find happiness in a stable home. Many couples long to adopt children. If one cannot have children, one has to make a tremendous commitment and to want children very badly to undertake such responsibility. There is the cost involved, and the time that one has to give up. As we all know, delightful though children are, they are with us for a very long time, and the older they get the nicer it all is.

I agree that we need legislation. I make only one comment on fostering. When I was in local government, I used to consider that foster parents were rather like the lifeboats of society: they rescue people in very difficult circumstances. I have never seen any objection to their being properly paid for this job. It requires professionalism of a high degree. Clearly if they are busy being foster parents they will not be able to undertake any other occupation. It is not unreasonable that they should be paid properly for what they are doing. I am sorry to hear that there is inconsistency of payment. I imagine that each local authority has its own ideas on that issue. Many women might be perfectly happy to look after children—they might find it an infinitely more interesting job than the alternatives—if they were paid properly to do so, and it would be valuable for society.

I conclude by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Meston. It is an important question. I very much hope that the Minister can say something constructive on what is one of the most important tasks in society.

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord on initiating this debate on a subject of great importance to the well-being of many children and young people in public care. The noble Lord and the noble Baroness made a number of important comments about adoption. I wish to begin by making some points about fostering.

Whether the figures of children in public care refer to the United Kingdom or England, the fact is that about two-thirds of those children are this evening with foster parents. That illustrates the important contribution that foster parents make to the well-being of children and young people in our society. But it was not always like this. Perhaps I may be excused a personal comment. When I first trained as a social worker, I visited a number of extremely large institutions which were geographically isolated, and where the young people in those institutions lived a structured and formal life, cut off from the rest of society. Noble Lords can well imagine what it must have been like for those young people when they left the institution and returned to society without the experience of using public transport, or doing the ordinary everyday things that other young people did in the normal course of their development.

We welcome the fact that in the 1960s there were two major changes in childcare in this country. The first was the development of preventive work which aimed at enabling families to overcome their difficulties in particular at times of crises in order that they could continue to look after their own children with proper support and help. The second was the promotion of foster care so that the children in public care had the possibility of experiencing living in an ordinary home and enjoying the benefits of being part of a family, albeit a substitute family.

As has been indicated, we should pay tribute to the thousands of families who have opened their homes to take on the care of other people's children. Those families have done the most extraordinary things. Sometimes they have been willing to operate in emergencies, receiving a call at any time of day or night. At other times they have taken on the care of children on a long-term basis when there was no prospect of those children becoming permanent members of their family. Other foster parents have been willing to open their homes to children who have been abused or neglected by the adults in their lives and who have therefore understandably behaved in a distrustful, challenging and sometimes destructive way. Other foster parents have been willing to open their homes to children with severe physical disabilities or severe mental impairments.

Foster care is a great success story in this country. While I was in the Department of Health, I became increasingly aware of how frequently other countries envied the contribution of foster parents and the part they play in childcare services in this country. However, here, I begin to express concerns about the present situation. While the closure of the vast institutions to which I have referred was to be welcomed, I fear the pendulum has swung too far. Many local authorities have closed their smaller-sized children's homes and some have even closed all of their children's homes. While the desire to give every child in care the opportunity to experience life as part of a normal family is laudable, the fact is that many such young people need time to recover from the trauma of earlier events. They need space in a safe place and they need intensive and skilled counselling. Some need firm control and a secure and consistent framework in which they can work out their pain and conflicts.

Therefore, it cannot be a case of "foster care, good; residential care, bad". The fact is that we need both, and we certainly need good quality residential care. When I was a director of social services, my regard for the foster parents was equalled by my admiration for the excellent work undertaken by staff in residential care units. Some authorities have closed a large number or all of their residential units, which has too often resulted in a great burden being placed upon foster parents with inadequate support. As a result, too many young people are experiencing far too many moves, as has already been indicated. Those moves serve only to increase their insecurity, disrupt their education and provoke much avoidable disturbed behaviour.

It has also resulted in another trend; that of young people being placed in residential centres many miles from their familiar environment. It is bad enough to lose your family, but much worse to lose all contacts with your friends and with familiar places such as schools and leisure centres. Even worse, there is a real danger that some of these young people will feel abandoned and it may be a case of "out of sight, out of mind".

I believe that the Government are to be congratulated on having forcefully reminded local authorities of their duty to be good parents to every child and young person in public care. With that in mind, I urge the Minister and her colleagues to continue to press that every local authority achieves at least the following standards. First, every child and young person in public care should have a named social worker in charge of protecting his welfare and promoting his interests. Secondly, each child should have a personal care plan which is reviewed regularly against indicators of progress or problems. Thirdly, each child should be safe from harm and everything should be done to promote his security and stability.

Fourthly, each local authority should behave towards each child as we would hope and expect a good parent to behave. Fifthly, foster parents and residential workers should be valued as partners in the caring process and their skills and knowledge should be respected. Sixthly, local authorities should display a greater ambition for each of the children and young people in their care. It is necessary to be a good parent for a child to achieve its full potential, and too often that has not been apparent in the way some local authorities have carried out their corporate duties. Seventhly, every local authority should demonstrate that it has access to a full range of provisions at local level so that children are not just fitted into inappropriate placements.

One recommendation to the Government is that organisations such as the National Foster Care Association should be given adequate core funding to ensure that they continue to be well managed and to play an important part in fostering and adoption services in this country.

Finally, perhaps I may add to the points which have been made about adoption. We all agree that keeping families together is a worthwhile objective. A number of authorities have developed helpful and excellent family support services. Many voluntary organisations contribute a great deal to this work. But as a result of that and smaller families, fewer children are placed for adoption. However, the children should not be allowed to languish for years in uncertainty waiting on the convenience of the adults in their lives. The early years pass all too quickly and each young person needs to have a sense of security during his childhood. Adolescence can be difficult enough without the added uncertainty of not knowing where you belong or constant disruption resulting from the behaviour of the adults to whom you should look for your well-being.

I say that because some no longer regard adoption as a positive option to be considered alongside all other options. Too often it seems that adoption is regarded as a last resort and not as an option of equal status with other possibilities. I was most interested in the document published earlier today from the Social Exclusion Unit on teenage pregnancy. The graph on page 59 shows clearly how in recent years the number of adoptions has reduced dramatically in this country. Adoption should be regarded for some children and young people as the positive option, the option of choice. With that in mind, it is important for everyone associated with the adoption process to recognise that we all have limited abilities to predict and, in many instances, looking for the excellent parent is unrealistic. We need to ensure that apparently suitable people are not ruled out on the basis of some generality and that adoption should be freed of unproven ideological baggage.

I know that the Government and the Association of Directors of Social Services are giving thought to these matters and I wish them all well in their endeavour to achieve a better and lasting outcome for every child and young person in public care.

My Lords, for the second time in as many sitting days, the House is debating the protection of children. Surely, few other issues have as great a bearing either on the well-being of society or the values which society professes to uphold. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Meston, has chosen to highlight the needs of children in care and I agree with almost all of what he said.

The Government are to be commended for all they have done to improve the law and practice relating to adoption, not least in their support for the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Bill which received its Third Reading in another place last Friday. I commend, too, the excellent circular issued by the Department of Health last August to local authorities which contained some fundamentally important messages for adoption agencies, social services departments and all those who are concerned with children's services. Those messages stand four-square with the work done by the previous government; notably the Children Act 1989, but also the 1993 White Paper on adoption, the impetus for which came from my right honourable friend Mrs. Bottomley, to whom credit should be paid. That was followed by the consultation document and the draft Bill issued in 1996.

I wish to concentrate on two particular aspects of the adoption issue—the place of adoption in the hierarchy of available options and the defects in the current system. Both take as their starting point the sobering picture revealed by recent statistics. My noble friend Lady Young pointed out that over the past few years we have seen a rise in the number of children coming into care, including a rise in the number of care orders being made through the courts, and at the same time a steady fall in the number of adoptions.

Underlying the fall in adoptions is a pattern of performance by local authorities which can most kindly be described as variable but which, in reality, contains some truly woeful track records. It was not for nothing, therefore, that Mr Boeteng's circular of last August had to spell out some of the fundamental facts of life on adoption.

We know from research studies, as we should know from sheer common sense, that the longer a child remains in the care system the worse his chances of emerging into adulthood undamaged. By contrast, children who have been adopted fare a great deal better emotionally, socially and at school. The success rate for adoption is typically high. The sense of security and well-being engendered by being a permanent part of a loving and supportive family is of inestimable value and, not surprisingly, the earlier the age the adoption begins, the better the prospects.

Again, we would do well to remind ourselves of the statistics. Young people who have been in care are 50 times more likely than other children to go to gaol. Those who have been in care comprise 38 per cent of young offenders and 23 per cent of adult prisoners. When we look at the hard costs of dealing with youth crime, never mind the cost in damaged lives, it really is extremely difficult to argue that the under-resourcing and under-performance of adoption services are shortcomings that we should be content to live with.

However, youth crime is only part of the story. Emotional deprivation spawns a whole host of social problems. Children growing up in council-run homes are statistically many times more likely to leave school without any educational qualifications and to become jobless. They are 60 times more likely to be homeless and 88 times more likely to be drug abusers. I noted with interest the launch today of the Prime Minister's campaign to cut the incidence of teenage pregnancies. One in four teenage girls in care becomes pregnant, and their babies, not altogether surprisingly, are 66 times more likely than other children to finish up in care. So the whole cycle is self-perpetuating.

The scandal of the numbers of children in care homes is not just the numbers, and not just that they are increasingly stuck there. It is that many local authorities have no information about how well pupils in care are doing at school, no means of adequately monitoring care plans for such children, and seemingly no sense that their strategic plans for children's services, including the recruitment of adopters, should occupy centre stage instead of being, as it so often is, a bit of a side-show.

In defence of some of these local authorities it is often said that because a large proportion of children placed for adoption are aged five and over—some 70 per cent—the system has to be geared to the difficulties and needs of those children. Clearly, it must be true that the effort required to place an older child successfully is more demanding of resources than that required for a younger child.

However, one needs to look behind those figures. It is, for example, perfectly true that only a very small number of children under one year old are adopted each year but the statistics on children who are adopted from care show that no less than 28 per cent of them started to be looked after by the childcare system under the age of one month, and a further 24 per cent between the age of one month and one year. In other words, even though most adopted children are adopted when aged 5 and over, well over half have already been in the system virtually all their lives. If I have one criticism of the circular issued by the Department of Health in August last year it is that it fails to bring out that point sufficiently.

As my noble friend Lady Young emphasised, the average length of time a child in care has to wait before being adopted is three years eight months. One in six children freed for adoption is not placed with an adoptive family for two years. Clearly, in many such cases there are perfectly valid reasons why some delay occurs. However, it is right that in the early period following a care order every avenue should be explored in an effort to return a child to his or her parents of birth. But there is strong evidence to suggest that with many social workers these efforts are continued for far longer than can possibly be justified by the interests of the children themselves. There is no doubt that the problems experienced by some adopted children are made worse by having been shunted from pillar to post in the preceding years and by the delays they have had to put up with in finding a placement.

There seems to be an automatic presumption that genetic parents are preferable to adoptive parents, even when there is a history of cruelty and neglect. All too often what is counted as "a successful outcome" to care is the return of a child to his birth family, almost without regard for the long-term result of that arrangement.

At present there are about 10,000 children awaiting adoption and 1,100 approved adopters waiting for children to adopt. Social services departments talk about the risks involved in failing to match a child with the right parents and that, of course, is a fair point. However, there are times when a risk needs to be put in context and then accepted. The context, in this case, is surely the recognised risks associated with leaving a child in care.

I am afraid to say that one of the most pernicious features of the current system is the misguided attitude taken by some local authorities to trans-racial adoptions. Matching a child with parents of the same race is clearly a highly desirable objective but it is an ideal that should not stand in the way of common sense. The alternative to placing a black or mixed race child with white adoptive parents is all too often a succession of placements over many years with white foster parents. The success rate in trans-racial adoptions is very high, yet local authorities and adoption agencies have continued to ignore departmental directives that have explicitly discouraged the assiduous pursuit of racial matching. I sense that more than just repeated guidance is needed if the prevalence of that syndrome is to recede.

I read in the press that the Cabinet committee on the family is launching a full-scale review on adoption. I should like to ask the Minister whether that is correct. It is impossible for me, in a short debate of this kind, to list everything that I feel such a committee should be looking at. However, can the Minister say whether some of the ideas advanced by the previous government will be examined? Will the Government, for example, consider broadening the base of adoption panels to include more independent members? Will they look at the possibility of giving children above a certain age the legal right to participate in their own adoption proceedings, or making the welfare of the child subject to more explicit legal tests for the court to assess? Will they consider the setting up of a complaints system as well as ways of ensuring that local authorities publicise their range of adoption services so as to encourage more families to consider adoption?

Can the Minister say whether the Government are open-minded about an automatic cut-off point so that when a child has spent a specific amount of time in the care system there will be a presumption in favour of adoption for that child? Will they also consider a similar procedure in the case of ethnic minority children for whom adoptive parents of the same race cannot be found but where white adopters are available'?

Finally, what are the Government doing to promote the dissemination of best practice among local authorities including active partnership arrangements and training opportunities for staff? I do not know, but I would be interested to find out, whether the Government will continue to examine the case for setting up a central authority for adoption as not only a guardian of standards but also to maintain a central register of adoptable children.

These are only some of the issues that should be addressed. I sometimes think that the more departmental activity there is on this subject, and the more Ministers make worthy pronouncements on it, the worse the statistics seem to get. I hope that the Government will succeed in translating some of their undoubtedly laudable intentions into concrete achievements.

My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for raising this important and timely question in your Lordships' House tonight. In our short debate it elicited some considered and well-informed contributions. I ought perhaps also to add my own thanks for the support in trying to assist me to be a good parent in terms of the timing of our debate.

I hope that I can reassure those who have spoken of Her Majesty's Government's commitment to improving standards and services for children, including adoption and foster care. Not only was it boldly stated in the White Paper, Modernising Social Services, but it is also being translated into action. In particular, we are heavily engaged in introducing forward-looking programmes and supporting initiatives designed to achieve important changes to enhance the quality of adoption and foster care to create more of the successes to which the noble Baroness, Lady Young, alluded and to help more people to do some of the extraordinary things which, as the noble Lord, Lord Laming, rightly said, adoptive and foster parents do.

The noble Lord, Lord Meston, commenced his speech on the issue of legislative reform. It is currently focused on the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Private Member's Bill which went through another place and recently had its First Reading in your Lordships' House. That Bill provides for the first time a sound legal basis for inter-country adoption. It also provides the opportunity for the United Kingdom to give effect to the 1993 Hague Convention on the protection of children and co-operation in respect of inter-country adoption. That convention was signed by the United Kingdom in January 1994. Finally, the Bill introduces measures to prevent trafficking in children. When enacted it will enable the United Kingdom to meet an important national commitment to protect children in inter-country adoption.

But legislation is not essential to achieve important improvements in adoption practice. There are opportunities for adoption agencies to achieve those improvements and we are supporting a range of initiatives to make that happen. Measures to improve the standard and quality of adoption and foster care are making good progress, and many of those measures are being introduced through the Quality Protects programme which was introduced last September. It brings new and challenging dimensions to the overall improvement of children's services and to that end we have made £375 million available to local authorities over three years in the form of a children's services special grant to assist them implement specific projects.

The general aim of the Quality Protects programme is the systematic transformation of the management of social services for children and the outcomes we achieve for those children. The objectives include many areas to which reference has been made tonight as well as trying to tackle some of the problems mentioned. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, spoke of the need to reduce the number of changes of main carers for children being looked after. Several speakers talked of the need to maximise the contribution that adoption can make to providing permanent families for children in appropriate cases, and for reducing the period children remain looked after before being placed for adoption or other suitable long-term care.

The Quality Protects programme aims to maximise the use of adoption and reduce delays while still making the right decisions for individual children. Everyone who spoke tonight recognised that making the judgments of what will be the right decision for an individual child is not a simple issue or necessarily a straightforward one. As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, suggested, it is a balancing of risks and we have a special responsibility to do that in the most thorough and considered way for children who are living away from their own families. But the performance of local authorities will be measured against performance indicators and targets which will include addressing the issue of delay in placing children with new families. I am sure that is right. Concern was expressed about the variability there has been in performance in the past.

I should like to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Laming, that bringing adoption back into the mainstream of options available for children is a crucial aspect of Quality Protects. Adoption has too often been regarded by some as an option of last resort, to be considered when all others have been examined and found wanting. But we must recognise that adoption is sometimes the only opportunity available to a child of belonging to a family. I should like to take the opportunity to pay tribute to adoptive parents and foster families who come forward to provide care for those vulnerable young members of society and who provide that valuable, natural resource to which the noble Lord, Lord Meston, referred, often in challenging and difficult circumstances.

The Quality Protects programme was a key element in Her Majesty's Government's response to the Children's Safeguards Review and will be the main focus for guiding and monitoring the improvements. Those changes come at a time when the nature of adoption itself is changing. As the noble Lord, Lord Meston, pointed out, babies are no longer the majority of children needing new families. Children over one year of age are now the main focus, many of whom have been victims of abuse and trauma in their young lives. The older the child who comes into the care system and who needs a new family, the more difficult is the task of finding a suitable home for him, and the more apparent the dangers to which the noble Earl, Lord Howe, referred of the problems that can arise from years of waiting in unsatisfactory circumstances.

On that point, perhaps I can say to the noble Earl that the Government have made it clear that it is unacceptable for a child to be denied loving, adoptive parents solely on the grounds that the child and the adopters do not share the same racial and cultural background. Adoption agencies must ensure that the appropriate level of help is made available to prospective adopters who do not share the same race or culture as the child, to enable the child to maintain continuity with the heritage of its birth family in its day-to-day life. But it certainly should not be an obstacle to the proper placement of children.

In relation to post-adoption contact—the issue to which the noble Lord, Lord Meston, referred—adoption is more open and has been so in recent years. Courts are more sympathetic to children retaining some form of contact with their birth parents where that is in the best interests of the child. That is particularly the case where siblings are involved and we have to recognise the specific strains those can put on a child's situation.

I turn now to fostering issues. As the House will be aware, services provided to children living away from home in this country have been under considerable scrutiny in the past two years as a result of continuing revelations of abuse, mostly in children's homes but also in other settings such as foster care, over the preceding years. Noble Lords will he aware that in November 1997 we received a report of the Children's Safeguards Review, which was set up to look at the safeguards for children living away from home and to make recommendations about how to make them more effective. That was followed in July 1998 by a report from the House of Commons Health Committee on looked-after children. Its report detailed wide-ranging concerns about how the care system was failing those children and made equally wide-ranging recommendations on the need to improve the standards of care and the outcomes for children looked after, two-thirds of whom—as the noble Lord, Lord Laming, reminded us—are in foster care. That is the background against which the Government have responded positively, establishing a major programme of measures to improve services for looked-after children, including those in foster care. The Quality Protects programme which was launched in September 1988 sets new objectives for children's services. That programme is backed up with £375 million of additional money for local authorities in the form of a children's social services special grant.

One of the six key priority areas for the programme is to improve the supply and choice of placement options for looked-after children. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Laming, that this will not only include foster placements but also the provision of sufficient placements in children's homes. As the noble Lord said, there is a very important need for a variety of accessible situations.

We recognise that foster care will not be appropriate for all children and that a variety of options should be available to local authorities so that placements are genuinely suited to the needs of individual children.

Part of the special grant money will be used for this purpose, and indeed local authorities will not receive their share of the grant unless they can show that there is sufficient placement choice for their looked-after children. Far too many children are put in inappropriate placements, resulting in frequent moves and a consequent unstable life, with all the damaging effects that have been described in the debate.

With the extra money, local authorities will be able to recruit and support a greater range of foster carers to meet different children's needs and to ensure that children and young people can exercise some preference.

Local authorities will be monitored by the Department of Health to see how well they implement measurable improvements in this and other areas.

The Government's commitment to improve services for looked-after children was set out last November in their response to the Children Safeguard Review. This covers the Quality Protects programme and other measures designed to improve the quality of care for looked-after children. For example, for the first time we are introducing national standards of foster care which were developed by the United Kingdom joint working party on foster care, comprising representatives from directors of social services, local government associations, foster carers and others from across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. There was also very wide consultation with social services departments, carers, children and young people about what those standards should reflect. Again, for the first time we are introducing a code of practice on the recruitment, assessment, approval, training, management and support of foster carers to improve the safety aspects of the fostering service.

Together, these publications, which we hope to launch on 22nd June, will provide a much clearer framework for the fostering service and will help to improve its quality.

In responding to the Children's Safeguard Review, the Government stated that they would support the development of national and local recruitment campaigns for foster parents. I am pleased to say that work is currently under way at the Department of Health in co-operation with the Association of Directors of Social Services and other foster care interests to develop a suitable national campaign. I hope that that will lead to more people considering taking up the unique challenge of caring for children from other families by becoming foster carers.

The noble Lord, Lord Meston, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, asked about payment of allowances to foster carers. We recognise the important role played by foster carers and that they should he appropriately rewarded and supported. However, in the context of overall policy we believe that it is for local authorities to determine the level of allowance they pay to their foster carers.

The noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked about the implications of the paper being submitted to the ministerial group on the family. It is likely that the Quality Protects programme will be allowed to run its course before a more radical view is taken to deal with some of the weaknesses in the adoption services, but that has yet to be fully considered, and we will have to look at those broader issues in the longer term.

The point has been well made tonight that for most children who are looked after by local authorities we should not rule out the possibility of adoption; far from it, we should make sure that it is a mainstream option. For those who are not able to be adopted, foster care should be a best placement option for many of them. A stable and happy family home will be the best environment in which they can develop. We are confident that the positive action that the Government are taking will help to achieve a healthy and vibrant fostering service.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until a quarter past eight.

moved Amendment No. 42.

The clauses which the noble Baroness is seeking to amend provide for the mayor to be disqualified from office if he fails to attend six consecutive monthly meetings of the assembly and for an assembly member to be so disqualified if he fails to attend any meetings of the assembly during a period of six consecutive months.

Under the provisions of Clause 44(2), the assembly is required to hold monthly meetings which, under the provisions of Clause 37(3), the mayor must attend unless he has a reasonable excuse not to do so. The meetings have been established for the express purpose of allowing the assembly to cross-examine the mayor about his decisions and actions.

The assembly will undoubtedly want to invite the mayor to attend the other meetings it will hold and the mayor will undoubtedly wish to accept such invitations. But the statutory monthly meetings will be the essential core of the mayor's formal relationship with the assembly. Therefore, we believe that any procedures which would result in the disqualification of the mayor for failure to attend meetings of the assembly should be linked to those statutory monthly meetings.

In our view, it is unlikely that the mayor would consciously seek to avoid those meetings. They will be an important opportunity for the mayor to explain his policies, decisions and intended actions.

But the Mayor of London will have other significant duties, the timing of some of which will be determined by others; for example, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, said, travel abroad to promote the economic interests of London and visits to London by people of importance to the future welfare of the capital. In such circumstances, the mayor must be able to absent himself from an assembly meeting. The deputy mayor will stand in for the mayor on those occasions.

However, we recognise that the mayor cannot be allowed to treat the assembly in a wholly cavalier manner. That would be completely unacceptable, not only to us but also to the people of London who will have elected the assembly to ensure that the mayor can be held to account. Therefore, we have provided for the mayor to be disqualified from office if he fails to attend six consecutive monthly meetings.

The noble Baroness has proposed that we should allow for fewer meetings to be missed—only three—before the mayor is disqualified. But that is neither acceptable nor workable. I am sure we can all conceive of circumstances—ill health, a serious accident or a combination of one of those with other circumstances—in which it may be necessary for three or more consecutive meetings of the assembly to be missed. But other than in exceptional circumstances, a mayor who failed to attend six consecutive meetings of the assembly would be pushing his luck, both with the assembly, on which the mayor relies for the delivery of the authority's budget, and with the electorate.

In the circumstances, I hope that the Committee will agree that we have pitched this about right in linking the procedure for disqualification to the statutory monthly meetings and in setting a maximum number of six consecutive meetings which can be missed.

I turn now to Amendment No. 42 which refers to disqualification of assembly members through failure to attend any meetings during a period of six consecutive months. The noble Baroness proposes that that should he reduced to any meetings during a period of three consecutive months.

An assembly member is likely to be busy with the statutory monthly meetings and any committee or sub-committees on which he is required to serve. Clause 6(3) provides that a member will be deemed to have attended a meeting of the assembly if he attended as a member of meetings of committees, sub-committees or as a representative of the assembly or authority at a meeting or a body of any other persons.

Those requirements are in line with those relating to local authority members provided in Section 85 of the Local Government Act 1972. In that Act, as in the provisions of this Bill, a member of a local authority can be disqualified if he fails, throughout a period of six consecutive months., to attend any meeting of that authority.

While we are creating a new style of London governance, there appears to be no special reason which makes it necessary for assembly members to be treated differently from members of a local authority in relation to matters of failures to attend meetings. Therefore, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

I listened to both speeches with great interest. On this occasion, I genuinely approached the matter with an open mind and wanted to be convinced one way or the other by the argument. It is an interesting issue. Like the noble Baroness who has just replied, I hope and believe that it is unlikely that any wise mayor will ignore the assembly for six months or even for three months. But then we legislate for what is unlikely to happen. When we have failed to do so, we have found ourselves in trouble. Therefore, while we hope and believe that it will not happen, we need to cover the eventuality that it may do so.

Therefore, I am persuaded that to reduce it to three consecutive meetings is sensible, given the frequency of the meetings and the work of the mayor and assembly, with the proviso outlined by the Minister that where a reasonable explanation is given for the mayor's absence that will be accepted.

I turn to the provision of absence without reasonable excuse, with which we are all familiar in local government; that is, six months. But as the Government have told us so often, the Greater London assembly is not local government; it is something which is unique and different. We cannot have it all ways. We should not look at this matter in the circumstances of general local government provision but in the particular circumstances about which we are speaking; in other words, the Greater London assembly.

As an assembly, it will meet frequently and, critically, it will be a much smaller body than most district councils and certainly than most major councils. The absence of an assembly member for as long as six months—I would say for as long as three months—will be even more serious than in the case of a larger authority. That member may well have, and indeed should have, important duties. It is quite serious to be absent for such a long period. While I hope and believe it will not happen in the case of the mayor, I am sure that sooner or later it will happen in the case of an assembly member. To allow it to go on for six months for no reason other than it is the norm in local government is not good enough. We need to look at the consequences of such an absence and provide for a shorter period— and three months is proposed here. However, just as in local government, where there is good reason the proviso exists that the member is excused. Where there is not good reason, we should pay attention to it.

The noble Lord said that in his opinion the comparison with local government is not valid. However, I am sure that the noble Lord will agree that local government provides experience of circumstances in which people may fail to attend. The noble Baroness's amendment proposes that disqualification will occur at the end of the period, as it does in local government. Therefore it is not a matter of judgment. My understanding is that the noble Lord was referring to something not encompassed by the amendment, which provides for the breakpoint—which in the case of local government is automatic disqualification.

The noble Baroness is one of the people in Committee with whom I would not clash over local government matters, but I am moderately confident that in local government, where prior reason has been given and the council has voted to accept that good reason, an absence may continue. That should, of course, be the case with the Greater London Authority, whatever the period of absence. I do not know whether the amendment provides for that but if not, no doubt that point will be dealt with.

I owe the noble Lord an apology—I was in error. I withdraw my comments.

I was most grateful for the assistance of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, in clarifying my remarks. The noble Lord said that it would be reasonable to extend the time. We will reconsider the amendment because it might be that we would wish to say that for both the mayor and the assemblyman an absence should be allowed provided the assembly agrees. So disqualification would not be automatic but a person would be unable to extend absences from meetings without anything happening. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 43:

Amendment No. 44 raises the same important issue as the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, but with a slight difference. I shall listen with interest to how the Government have addressed this important issue. As the noble Baroness said, we could maintain what is probably a fiction—that candidates are elected as individuals. We could argue about the importance of the party label. Here, we are talking about the 11 London members who will be chosen by a party and elected from a party list. In other words, the electorate will be voting not for the individual but a party. Voters will have the right to believe that the people elected represent that party. That is essentially different from the situation in parliamentary and local authority voting, where candidates are elected as individuals, albeit with a party label. In this case, the party will be elected.

Again, we are talking about a small assembly of 25 persons in total, where one change could make a significant difference. I do not mean a difference to the balance of control because the assembly will not be a local authority in that sense, so control will matter less. Most important of all, the member concerned would be exercising a deceit on the electorate, who voted for a party as distinct from a person. We debated earlier the unlikely event of a mayor ignoring the assembly. A change of representation is a much more likely event. Rightly or wrongly, people do change their party allegiance. If a person who has been elected as a Conservative sees the light and decides that he is really a Liberal Democrat—and such things are not unknown—that would be a deceit and different from Parliament and local authorities.

Our amendment differs in an important respect from that of the noble Baroness, but we may be able to debate that later. Amendment No. 43 applies also to someone being expelled from their party. That worries me a little because it would give a party the ability to get rid of a troublesome member chosen by the electorate. The temptation to do that might be too much for some party managers to resist. Our amendment deliberately does not refer to expulsion but to the decision of the assembly member to belong to a particular party or to no party. It will be his or her choice, under whatever duress. I invite the Official Opposition to reflect on that difference, as we will. But both amendments address an important situation that, sooner or later, will arise.

Before I heard the noble Lord, Lord Tope, I was going to say that our amendment and Amendment No. 44 were very similar but ours was better because it allowed for more eventualities—such as expulsion. Having listened to the noble Lord, it may be that his amendment is better. I need time to reflect. The Minister should understand that both the noble Lord and I feel that it would be dreadful if someone were elected on a party list, not as an individual, then decided to become a member of another party—although I will not use strong words such as "a deceit on the electorate".

It is different when Members of Parliament cross the Floor. Independent MPs are elected as individuals, and presumably electors allow them to use their judgment. I understand that their judgment now is that the Conservative party is better than the Liberal Democrats. I could not help making that observation after the way that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, explained the change-over of crossing the Floor. I thought that we would even out the argument on that point. However, it is a very serious matter if we are to be so involved in a small assembly with just 11 elected members who will be able to criss-cross the Floor in this way.

I cannot understand why anyone would leave the Liberal Democrats for the Conservatives or, indeed, vice versa. I am a little torn on this one. After all, I am an old apparatchik and I tend to think that if people leave a party there should be some sanctions. However, on reflection, I think that these proposals are pushing it a bit. There are certain practicalities involved, especially as regards the Liberal Democrats' amendment. In reality, if anyone realises that he will lose his job as an assembly member in such circumstances, he will not resign the party whip; indeed, he will just ignore it. Therefore, it will become a matter of party discipline and it is an issue upon which the party will almost automatically take a view. As I know, partly to my cost, you then get into all sorts of court cases, litigation and in this case presumably employment rights to some extent because we are talking about a paid job.

Therefore. there are real problems involved. But quite apart from the practical problems, there is also an issue of principle. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, is right to say that we are creating a unique body, although it is a relatively small one. Nevertheless, we have had a long-standing convention at all levels that, if people change their allegiance once elected by electorates, they do not automatically have to resign. Of course, there have been one or two honourable exceptions to that in the past 100 years, but not very many, relating to Parliament, local government or indeed the European Parliament. I also believe that that is the case in most other countries. I asked for advice as to whether there was any situation in any country where this applied by law. The general view was no, although someone did indicate that it might apply in North Korea under rather greater sanctions.

It is not long ago that the ballot paper did not give any party affiliation. However, in the past few decades we have put the candidates' affiliation on it. Is that, in essence, any different from saying, "These are the top three Labour candidates", or "These are the top three Conservative candidates", who get on as a result of selection? I do not believe it is that different in principle from us being able to say that a convention which has run for many years in local government, in Westminster and more recently in the European Assembly should apply here.

Once you have elected someone, he will serve his term. He will have been elected under a party label, whether it was by first-past-the-post, by an alternative vote., STV or indeed a list system. In all such cases, simply because someone decides that he is unable to continue to share a party label—and it may well be that the party has changed rather than the person; that does happen—there is no reason why the person should lose the position for which he was voted by the electorate. In any case—and I return to a practical point—the reality is that in those circumstances no one would actually resign the whip. We would be straight into party discipline, and that is a point which the Liberal Democrat Benches were trying to avoid. That, of itself, creates many more complex problems than are addressed by this amendment. Therefore, with those words, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

I bow to the Minister's much greater experience than mine as an old apparatchik. I recognise the difficulties about which he is talking. However, there is an important difference here. The noble Lord made a reference to the fact that someone is elected. The people under discussion are not elected in a personal sense; they are there from a party list to give proportionality between the parties. When they transfer to another party, they automatically upset the proportionality, which has been determined by the number of votes that the party, not the individual, has received. In other words, the Government's intention in this Bill, which we certainly support, of creating proportionality on the assembly would be immediately upset. Because we are talking about such a small number—only 11—it would be upset to a relatively great extent. That is the point we are trying to make. It is not the same as the issue of a Member crossing the Floor in, say, the House of Commons or in a council chamber. Is it not actually altering the intention the Act, as it will be, as regards the election?

I understand only too well that there are practical difficulties and, old or apparatchik or not, we can recognise that fact. However, I ask the Minister to recognise that there is a real issue here and to think about how it can be addressed. Some of us do understand issues of party discipline. I shall be very happy to have discussions on the matter. It is not for me to speak for the other Front Bench, but I suspect that that will also be case for them. In that way we will be able to see how we can address the situation which, I say again, will arise sooner or later. It is a very serious situation. particularly in a small assembly.

I could not agree more with what the noble Lord, Lord Tope, has just said; indeed, there is a great difference between the example given by the Minister and the position that we are discussing whereby people cross the Floor of the House. I should have thought that the Government would be delighted to accept this amendment. I can only speak for my own party, but our list is made up of one member, one vote in London, voting for the list and the order of the list. That is one point. I believe that it was somewhat different in the Minister's party. The list was somehow designated but not by one member, one vote. I am not quite sure how they came to it, but I do not think there was the same democratic choice of the list. Therefore, given that fact, they would be even more upset if one of their list actually moved across the Floor to either the Liberal Democrats or the Conservatives.

The Minister made much of a point that he really did not understand why the Conservatives went to the Liberal Democrats or vice versa. He made the point that sometimes parties change out of all recognition. It may well be that his party is one which has really done so. Indeed, it might have offended some of the voters because they ended up all of a sudden with something completely different from what they believed the party to be.

The noble Lord, Lord Tope, suggested that we would be happy to sit round a table and discuss the matter. We would most certainly be happy to do so. I shall withdraw my amendment at this stage, but I think that the Minister should take note of the fact that we consider this to be a very important matter. If people are elected on a list and then decide to cross the Floor, we believe that the voters should have an opportunity to say something about it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 46:

As the noble Baroness said, her Amendment No. 46 would extend the provisions in Clause 9 of the Bill to include a requirement to give public notice of the occurrence of London member vacancies in addition to constituency member vacancies. Of course it is right that if a vacancy arises in a constituency seat, the proper officer of the authority must give public notice of that vacancy, as required by Clause 9(2)(b). This is because a by-election will fill that vacancy and the public therefore need to be told.

But vacancies in London member seats will not be filled by an election. Where the vacancy is in the seat of a member elected from a party list, the returning officer will be told that a vacancy has occurred and will fill it from the list submitted by the party at the previous ordinary election. No election will be held and therefore public notice is not necessary. However, I accept that it will be important that the public are made aware of who has filled an assembly list vacancy. Given the size of the assembly, this should be achieved simply by virtue of their taking their seat. But formal public notice of those individuals who might fill a future vacancy will in effect have been given at the preceding ordinary election when parties submitted their lists of candidates to the electorate. I hope that in the light of this reassurance the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

I listened with interest when the Minister said that she did not feel the amendment was necessary. On the other hand, I can see no reason why it should be unnecessary. It seems extraordinary that no matter how small or how large our amendments may be, or what Bill they seek to amend, or what we are talking about, the answer from the Government is always no. In all my time at this Dispatch Box on the one occasion that I achieved success it was overturned in the other place. One would think that at some stage the Government would want to encourage us and would give just a little in the hope that we might not divide on a measure that they would consider far more substantive.

I did not want to interrupt the noble Baroness in full flow. I merely wished to ask the Minister a question before the noble Baroness withdraws the amendment, if that is what she intends to do.

I shall certainly not withdraw it until the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has had an opportunity to ask her question. We may wish to return to this matter. If the notice comprises a public notice and not an advertisement, we may wish to suggest that it is put on the Internet, for example. However, at this stage I shall sit down and listen quietly to what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has to say.

I do not think my comments merit that introduction! I am afraid that I cannot immediately recall what notice is to be given after elections. I hope that the Minister can remind us of that. The noble Baroness proposes that the public should be made aware of who are the London members and who is a new London member. If there is any inconsistency as regards notifying the public in the event of the next person on the list filling a casual vacancy, and with regard to what happens after the ordinary elections, one should be able to consider that matter without it being regarded as any great drama or loss of face on the part of the Government.

Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I am unable to recollect that point. In the light of my previous error with the noble Lord. Lord Tope, I prefer to write to the noble Baroness.

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 48:

The noble Baroness clearly points to a somewhat improbable set of circumstances. They are, nevertheless, circumstances which the legislation would allow to arise. She suggests that where two independents have been elected and two independents resign. die or, for one reason or another, disappear from the assembly, there should be a by-election. Her proposals are different from those we provided for Scotland and Wales, where exactly the same situation could apply.

Improbable though such circumstances may be, one has to assess the cost of running a London-wide election. The assembly can function with vacancies and whereas it is clear who the replacement candidate would be from the party lists, in such circumstances it is not at all clear that a by-election would produce another independent candidate. In practice, the most likely effect of a by-election would be for a member of one of the established parties to win. That would not reflect the original views of the electorate.

There are difficulties in this area. Whatever answer one comes up with creates an anomaly. I am not convinced by the noble Baroness's solution. One can afford an anomaly once but not twice. Were there a large number of independent candidates, one would have to find a mechanism, but I am not sure why it is obvious that because one moves from one vacancy to two, one has to provide for a new election which almost certainly would not result in additional independent members. Therefore the objective of the amendment would not necessarily be achieved.

I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment, in this form at least. I concede that there is a problem and I am happy to have another look at it. I am not sure that I will come up with a solution that is capable of meeting all the various problems that this distinctly improbable situation would cause. I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.

Before the Minister sits down, when one is drafting legislation improbabilities as well as probabilities have to be taken into account. In this instance, improbable though it might be that two independent members would be elected under a PR system, it is not inconceivable that notable people might be attractive. We are creating something new and different and Londoners may decide that independent members are attractive. One can conceive of circumstances under which assembly members were undertaking an investigation and two independent members were travelling in the same car. They could be involved in the same accident, with fatal consequences.

Does the Minister think that two casual vacancies of two independent members for, let us say, three and half years, is preferable to a by-election? A by-election may produce a different result and not return independent members but at least it would not leave the assembly deprived of virtually 10 per cent of its membership. Given the fact that in legislation one has to consider the improbable as well as the probable, this is a potentially significant matter.