asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the Government recognise that many people feel intimidated by people begging on the streets and in other public places. Begging in a public place and much of the behaviour associated with it are already offences. The Metropolitan Police have a dedicated unit dealing with rough sleepers and begging. Joint operations are also run with London Transport Police, targeting begging on the Underground. The clear message is that if people want to help those in need, they should give to one of the homeless charities, not to individual beggars.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I accept fully that the police cannot prevent a certain amount of begging and that their resources are limited. But is he aware that it is the perceived increase in the numbers of babies and children used in begging, as confirmed by the social services departments of several inner London councils, on the streets and on the London Underground system which distresses Londoners most? Last winter, the Home Office stated that such practice would not be tolerated. Since it is obvious that the women holding the babies are highly organised, is there not a case for a more co-ordinated approach to that problem, indeed to begging as a whole, along the lines of the Rough Sleepers Initiative?

My Lords, many of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, are sound. In 1998, almost 1,600 offences of begging were recorded. Last year, the Metropolitan Police recorded only 27 cases of using a child for the purpose of begging—a distinct criminal offence—but recognise that there are likely to be many more. In terms of co-ordination, there has been a well-organised and co-ordinated exercise dealing with beggars with children on the Tube lines between Mile End and Tower Hill. The Metropolitan Police, Bethnal Green division, worked with social services and the NSPCC because all have an extremely relevant interest.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that recently in Knightsbridge I was stopped by a young girl who tapped me on the arm and produced a placard saying, "Money for food. I am from Kosovo"? When I arrived here and informed people of the incident, they told me that the Tube was full of such people and they were not from Kosovo. Will the Minister elaborate further on what he has already said?

My Lords, anyone who importuned the noble Baroness in Knightsbridge or anywhere else is a better man than I am, Gunga Din! I know of that practice because it happened to me also, but not in Knightsbridge. It seems to me that it is doubly wicked for people to pretend to be from Kosovo and to prey on public sympathy when they are not from there. As I said, it is an offence to have a small child with you for the purposes of begging. Very often, if one offers the price of a sandwich and offers to deliver the sandwich, one is spurned. That is because, I am sorry to say, what is wanted is money, not food. The police are aware of that. Certainly, there is an intensive operation in the Charing Cross area which is starting to work.

My Lords, many years ago, my training taught me that collecting alms was not begging if a service was provided with it, for example, singing or music. There is a growing tendency, particularly on the Tube, for people to "entertain" the prisoners travelling by that means. Does my noble friend agree with me that the way to proceed against those people might well be under the Trade Descriptions Act, in view of the quality of some of the entertainment?

My Lords, my noble friend was wrongly instructed by his superior officer. As is well known, there are offences relating to the pretence of singing, playing, performing or offering anything for sale if that is being done with a child under the age of 16. As the noble Lord will doubtless recall, they arise under Section 4 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933.

My Lords, will the Minister tell the House what is being done about another nuisance, another kind of begging; namely, the practice commonly called "squeegee" performed by "squeegee merchants"? You have stopped in your car at the lights when somebody suddenly appears, cleans the windscreen when you do not want it cleaned, and then stands beside the vehicle in a somewhat intimidatory fashion and suggests you might like to give them some money? I ask what is being done about that, particularly in view of the fact that the Home Secretary said that when his party came into power that matter would be dealt with as a matter of great urgency.

My Lords, it is indeed a matter of great urgency, but it has been overcome in the urgency stakes by reform of this House. What I do with squeegee merchants—and I have the cleanest windscreen in the western world—is just sit there and say, "I haven't got any money".

My Lords, not long ago—and not for the first time—I saw a woman with a small child sitting begging at the foot of an escalator on the Underground. On my rather amateur reading of the Children and Young Persons Act, I am in some doubt whether she was committing what is still technically an imprisonable offence under that legislation or whether she was covered solely by railway by-laws. Can the Minister resolve the point? Further, is he in a position to say what policy the transport police follow in dealing with these very difficult cases?

My Lords, it is a potential criminal offence, both under the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 and also under the Vagrancy Act 1824. I am happy to reassure your Lordships that the policy of the London Transport Police is to target particular problem areas and to deal with the matter in as sympathetic and firm a way as possible. Some people who are begging are genuinely destitute, but I am afraid that many of them are not.

My Lords, following the question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, can my noble friend the Minister say whether the Government have considered how many of the beggars, or what percentage of them, really are genuine refugees in real need?

My Lords, many of them are not. Indeed, quite a lot of those who pretend to be homeless have settled accommodation and many carry misleading literature, as indicated by the noble Baroness. This is a confidence trick on the public and an offence of dishonesty.

My Lords, is the Minister aware of the work of the 12 officers of the Homeless Persons' Unit in the Charing Cross area who are widely respected by agencies working with rough sleepers? Is he aware that their remit has now been extended beyond the West End to the whole of Westminster and that it is felt by them, and many others, that they can no longer do their job effectively?

My Lords, I am grateful for that tribute. In fact, the Rough Sleepers' Initiative, which was launched by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, is focusing entirely on this matter with the intention of reducing the numbers of the homeless and those who sleep rough by two-thirds by the year 2001.

asked Her Majesty's asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, I am afraid that, across the whole of life, superior resources can secure advantages over those who are not well off. The legal system is no exception. However, the reformed legal system that I am trying to deliver aims to prevent litigants with superior resources gaining unfair advantages in litigation. That is a major objective of the new unified Court Procedure Rules, which require judges to ensure that cases are conducted in a manner proportionate to the issues in dispute and the means of both parties.

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for that Answer. The Question occurred to me some weeks ago when the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, in announcing limits to trial by jury said, when speaking about the present arrangements:

"Delay pollutes the system".—[Official Report, 19/5/99; col. 363.]

Does the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor agree that what the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, characterised as "manipulation of the system" for the purposes of delay does not apply only to remand prisoners electing for trial in the Crown Court? Will he acknowledge that such "manipulation of the system" can also arise in civil cases, and in higher courts, where a wealthy litigant can "prolong interlocutory proceedings"—I believe that is the phrase—in order to delay the full trial of an action, with the effect, if not the intention, of exhausting the resources of a poorer litigant?

My Lords, the most fundamental change brought about by the recent civil justice reforms is the introduction of active case management by the judges, with timetables set and policed by the courts. I entirely agree with what the noble Lord has said, namely, that the civil system can be sought to be manipulated in the same way as my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn acknowledged the criminal system could be. But the object of active case management is to prevent that happening. The court can, and should, apply strict sanctions for non-compliance with its timetabling orders; for example, it can strike out a statement of case or order costs against a non-compliant party. The financially stronger party will no longer be able to dictate the pace of litigation.

My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware how very welcome and encouraging his answers to this important Question have been? Further, will he concede that it is possible to take early action as regards this abuse of proceedings whereby very rich men can exhaust the resources of those much poorer than themselves?

My Lords, one of the objects of "hands-on" case management by judges is that it will deal directly with that situation. It is intended to bear down firmly on the twin evils of the law, which are excessive delay and excessive cost. This really puts the judges on trial to make case management work and deliver. However, I acknowledge that it requires a substantial culture change and a judicial determination to impose tough sanctions to ensure that timetables are strictly observed and that unnecessary procedures are not indulged in for reasons of forensic advantage.

My Lords, what the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, may be referring to is an action of defamation in which a wealthy individual, the defendant, appears to grind down a plaintiff of more modest means. Can my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor say whether the law in any way assists a plaintiff of modest means to bring or defend an action of defamation?

My Lords, that is a very particular question in relation to defamation. I know not whether the noble Lord who tabled this Question had in mind an action of defamation, but I can appreciate that in an action of defamation a wealthy defendant could seek to manipulate the system so as to grind down the plaintiff. As I say, case management is now designed to prevent that. Of course, the legal costs of bringing or defending defamation actions are high. I intend to bring into force early next year an important provision of the Defamation Act 1996 to help those of modest means involved in defamation proceedings. There will be a new summary procedure. This will enable a judge to decide a case—where the defendant has no reasonable prospect of success whatsoever—without a jury and to decide it without the high costs of a long-drawn-out litigation. The remedies include an order that the defendant publish a suitable correction and apology and pay compensation of up to £10,000. Defendants of modest means will also benefit from this procedure because a judge can strike out a hopeless claim; that is, one where there is no reasonable prospect of success.

My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord accept that his proposals to remove legal aid from personal injury actions permit wealthy insurance companies to grind down their opponents and that they have shifted the balance in favour of the insurance companies when personal injury actions are brought'

My Lords, I do not accept that. I have to say to the noble Lord—as I think I have said to him before during our debates on the Access to Justice Bill—that this Government won the general election on a pledge that they would heat schools and hospitals as their major spending priorities. We did not pledge that legal aid should be our number one spending priority. Lawyers who have vested interests in maintaining the slack old ways of conventional legal aid will simply have to learn to live with that fact. Most personal injury cases which are worth while can be funded perfectly well through conditional fee agreements provided by the private sector. Scarce public funds should not be allocated to funding cases which can be effectively pursued by other means.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, local authorities have an ongoing responsibility for people they support in residential care. We are aware, however, that local authorities do not always keep placements of older people under regular review. In our White Paper Modernising Social Services we have made it clear that when people are admitted to a care home case reviews should be carried out by the local authority within three months, and thereafter at least once a year.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that helpful reply. Does she accept that local authorities have moved from being the dominant providers of residential care to being principally purchasers of care? That being so, does the Minister agree that it is important to remind local authorities that they have a continuing responsibility both to ensure that a placement is appropriate for the needs of the individual and of good quality, and also regularly to review an individual's needs, as these change over a period of time?

My Lords, the noble Lord obviously speaks with a great deal of experience in this area. In 1990 policy guidance was issued to remind local authorities that they should review the needs of people in receipt of services, whether those services were provided by local authorities or commissioned by them. The noble Lord is right to point out that we should recognise that regular reviews offer benefits both for the individual and for the service as a whole. Under the fair access to care services initiative, we are taking steps to ensure that local authorities will be required to undertake regular reviews. We are consulting on the details at the moment and we intend to issue draft guidance to them in April 2000.

My Lords, what can be done to help those people who undertake to pay for their own care in a home—they may choose to do so because they want to be independent or they may do so for some other reason—but find after a time that they run out of money? As I am sure the Minister knows, these people find themselves in a difficult position because local authorities can be unwilling to accept responsibility for these people who have tried to be independent. Can the Minister say how we can make life simpler and more seamless for these people?

My Lords, the responsibility to review care will apply to the care needs of all people, whether they are in local authority homes or in independent residential homes, when they are funded by a local authority. However, as the noble Baroness rightly points out, not everyone is funded by a local authority. The House has considered some of the problems that can arise in that situation, most recently when we considered the Statement that accompanied the report of the Royal Commission on long-term care. Some of the fundamental, underlying problems of the funding of long-term care have to be analysed in the context of that report.

My Lords, what has been the fate of the report of the committee which looked into standards of residential care in homes for the elderly, which I believe was submitted to the department in January? Further, what progress has been made by the national beds inquiry into the whole issue of delayed discharge from acute beds into residential homes which has been caused by the lack of clear eligibility criteria?

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, pinpoints a number of areas. He is right to suggest that we have to make sure that we have in place proper hospital discharge policies that take into account both the need for adequate hospital care but also the need for adequate provision of non-hospital care when that is most appropriate to the needs of the individual. That entails co-operation and partnership between local authorities and health authorities. It also entails—I come back to the issue of reviews—ensuring that placements continue to be appropriate. I believe that the reviewing of a placement after three months is particularly important. We are interested in fostering independence. We have to consider whether placements—which are often allocated as the result of an emergency situation—are still appropriate or whether they might be more appropriate for others. We do not want placements to become permanent by default.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that many independently run residential homes are being squeezed by government in two ways? On the one hand, they are constantly being told to raise their standards of care but, on the other, they are told by local authorities to accept below inflation levels of fee increases, notwithstanding nationally imposed pay increases for nursing staff that are well above inflation? Does the Minister acknowledge that this squeeze is placing many residential homes in a very difficult financial position indeed?

My Lords, there are pressures on those providing services, whether in the public or the private sector. However, I do not think anyone would think it acceptable for us to abrogate responsibility for ensuring that standards in private placements are of an adequate quality, especially when—as the noble Lord, Lord Laming, reminded us—many of those placements are commissioned and paid for by local authorities.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the Statement on the Post Office made by Peter Mandelson on 7th December last made it clear that at present wholesale privatisation would not be a realistic option. It would take a long time to introduce, cause massive uncertainty and diminish the chance of immediate reform. Further details on the full package of reforms will be announced in the White Paper on Post Office reform which the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry expects to publish tomorrow.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his, as usual, courteous and helpful reply—although I am sure he will admit that on this occasion it was not very informative. Perhaps the Minister can assure the House of one matter which surely is not affected by any Statement on the Post Office. Will he reaffirm the undertaking that it will remain the Government's policy for the rest of this Parliament that there will continue to be one universal rate of postage, with daily collections and deliveries at no extra charge for remote rural areas?

My Lords, I always try to be courteous to the House. However, if I am informative, I apologise. I have no intention whatever of being informative when a Statement is being made tomorrow—and that applies to the noble Baroness's second question.

My Lords, I should declare an interest in that I am a national honorary life member of the Union of Communication Workers. Does my noble friend accept that there is absolutely no commitment in the Labour Party manifesto, on which we were elected to power on 1st May 1997, to privatise the Post Office or any part of it? Does he further accept that all the statements made between the 1st May 1997 and today have indicated that there is no intention to privatise any part of the Post Office? Can my noble friend assure me that that will continue to be the position of Her Majesty's Government?

My Lords, in my first Answer I quoted directly from the Statement made by Peter Mandelson on 7th December, which was that at present wholesale privatisation would not be a realistic option. That remains the position.

My Lords, without revealing the details of any Statement which may or may not be made tomorrow, or of the White Paper which is to be published tomorrow, can the Minister say whether consideration has been given to changing the Telecommunications Act so that the Post Office can not only, as now, receive items by electronic means, but also dispatch them by the same electronic means?

My Lords, that may or may not be one of the issues which will be covered in the White Paper tomorrow.

My Lords, does the Minister accept that the question of ownership of the Post Office is perhaps less relevant than the question of whether the Post Office can operate as a fully fledged commercial operation? Since the last Statement by his colleague in another place, is he satisfied that the Post Office has the power to have the appropriate pay structure in place to operate on an international scale, as it clearly seeks to do? Does he accept that there is inadequate transparency in the operations of the Post Office, in particular with regard to the prices that are being paid for international acquisitions?

My Lords, the noble Lord may think that; I cannot possibly comment.

My Lords, whatever gloss the Minister puts on it either today or tomorrow in the Statement, is not the creation of a plc with share capital the first step on the route to privatisation? Before the noble Lord dismisses that question, perhaps he will discuss the matter with his noble friend Lord Simon of Highbury, who will confirm that that is the way BP was privatised. Are we not right in thinking that the Post Office will join the Tote, air traffic control and BNFL on the list of Labour's privatisations now that it is a convert to privatisation?

My Lords, the noble Lord is entitled to make any assumptions he likes about tomorrow's White Paper and Statement; I shall not add to his speculation.

My Lords, does not the noble Lord accept that the question I asked was whether consideration has been given to a particular area of Post Office activity, not what the result of that consideration will be?

My Lords, subject to the Statement made on the 7th December, consideration is given to all options.

My Lords, given that first-class letters habitually take two days to cross London and that correctly addressed letters are being delivered to the wrong addresses with increasing frequency, can the Minister say what steps are being taken to improve Post Office efficiency?

My Lords, if that question is relevant to the original Question, I shall not answer it.

My Lords, in view of the White Paper being published tomorrow, I realise how difficult it is to ask the Minister a question. None the less, does he agree that the Post Office has performed extremely well in recent years? Does he further agree that this area has become a competitive market, with other post offices around the world building their businesses? Whatever may or may not be in the White Paper, is it not desirable that the Post Office in Britain should be put in the same position?

My Lords, it is not at all difficult either to answer or to fail to answer these questions. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, in his first statement; the Post Office has done a good job.

My Lords, does not the Minister concede that what he has told the House this afternoon is in direct contrast to what the Prime Minister said yesterday?

My Lords, I do not think he dealt with this.

My Lords, can my noble friend explain what he means by "no wholesale privatisation"? What does the word "wholesale" mean in that context?

My Lords, if I have said anything new, it was entirely unintentional. The words "wholesale privatisation" were spoken by Peter Mandelson on 7th December. I assume "wholesale" means the whole of the range of Post Office services. My noble friend could have asked that question on 7th December.

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 that is being made in another place on Libya.

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

moved Amendment No. 326C:

Page 129, line 28, leave out ("Mayor of London") and insert ("Greater London Authority").

A number of amendments in my name and those of my noble friends are grouped with this amendment. We, too, are concerned about the respective roles in London. When examining this clause, I wondered whether it would be appropriate to try in some way to replicate the role of the Chambers outside London. I was not nearly so ambitious as to have a go at that kind of provision. I recognise that the assembly has been given a role in the matters of appointment and so forth with which the amendments in this group are concerned.

For example, in regard to Amendment No. 327A dealing with appointments, I acknowledge that the Bill gives the assembly the role of acting as consultee. We seek to provide the assembly with the opportunity also to say no to appointments. We have said throughout our debates on the Bill that an opportunity will be lost if the scrutiny role of the assembly is down-played. We are told that that is not what the Government have in mind in their modernisation programme, and that they believe that a scrutiny body can scrutinise, as it were, in advance. To down-play the assembly's role would represent a great loss of opportunity as regards the talent that we hope will be available in the new body. While this is not the model that we would wish to see, with a mayor who will almost certainly be elected substantially on the basis of personality as well as politics—or possibly personality more than politics—it would be right for the 25 assembly members to play a restraining and a constructive role. The amendments that we have tabled in this group continue that thread in our argument.

I have referred to Amendment No. 327A. Amendment No. 333A relates to the appointment of chairmen of the new authority. Amendment No. 348A relates to the disposal of land for less than the market value, or acquiring an interest in another body. We believe that the assembly as well as the mayor should give consent in such a situation. Amendment No. 350A would allow the assembly a role in the period within which a public meeting is to be held following the publication of the annual report and provisions for the conduct of the meeting. I suspect that that whole area, bureaucratic as it may be, is one to which we may want to return in general with regard to the assembly at a later stage. Its good and effective workings depend on such provision.

Amendment No. 350B adds a requirement for the assembly to give consent before the LDA issues a compulsory purchase order. That could be an important part of its activities, Amendment No. 351A deals with a major matter—namely, if the LDA changes its name, it will be required to tell the assembly that it has done so. If the Minister tells me that I am being rather prescriptive, I shall accept his criticism. Amendment No. 351B would require the assembly to approve by a simple majority the decision of the mayor to remove a member of the LDA whom the mayor regards as unfit to carry on the functions. It would also give the assembly the power on its own to vote to remove an unfit member from office.

These are in themselves small matters, but they amount to important indicators as to the respective roles of the people who will have the responsibility to make sure that London, and London's regeneration, work well.

This part of the Bill deals with the London Development Agency. As the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, recognised explicitly, and to some extent also the noble Baroness, the amendments in this grouping relate back to the constitutional part of the Bill and how it feeds through into this section. Although they may be related to matters dealing with the LDA, they stem from a difference of opinion on the respective roles of the mayor and the assembly.

In that context, I find it difficult to tackle the amendments each and severally, because they all stem from a fundamental difference. We propose that the mayor should play the executive decision-taking role in this as in other areas, and that the assembly should provide scrutiny of the mayor's actions. The majority of the authority's functions will be exercised by the mayor. They include all of the functions that are dealt with by these amendments: consenting to the appointment and remuneration of LDA staff; consenting to the acquisition of company shares; and approving the LDA strategy. Those are all functions exercisable by the mayor. It is not appropriate that those decisions should be exercised jointly, or partially jointly, with the assembly. That would not be a recipe for efficient and effective government, and it is not what we have discussed from the very beginning, prior to the referendum, in terms of how the authority operates.

The role of the assembly is very important. It is to hold the mayor to account for the way in which his executive functions are exercised. That is a model for good, accountable administration. All of these amendments seem, to suggest some degree of joint executive power in areas which we would reserve for the mayor. If we give joint executive power, how can the assembly then effectively scrutinise its own exercise of that executive power—and in particular, in relation to these amendments, with respect to the LDA? If the assembly is already party to the decision, or has second-guessed the mayor's decision, how can it then exercise an independent scrutiny function?

I do not wish to go any further, but the amendments undermine our essential approach. We believe that they would be unworkable, particularly in this area which relates to important economic decisions. If there were a difference of opinion on the nature of the regeneration plan for all or part of London and the assembly and the mayor could not reach a compromise, how would we be able effectively to operate the LDA's function? That is not a recipe for good government and, equally importantly, it is not a good recipe for improving the economy and prosperity of London.

I am open to pressure from the noble Lord to go further on particular amendments. However, I do not believe that it would shed any greater light on the group of amendments. This is a fundamental constitutional matter to which the noble Lord indicated he wished to return on Report. This kind of amendment is probably best dealt with in that context, not this. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment at this stage.

I am grateful to the Minister for his reply which was neither more nor less than I expected. As I said when I moved the amendment, we have had this debate on a number of occasions. The Government have been firm in their view, but the root cause of the difficulty is that there is a difference in terminology between the place from which this idea came and the practice in this country. We need to recognise that, but that recognition cannot be achieved through the amendments.

I do not propose to press the individual amendments. However, in response to one comment made by the Minister, it seems to me that we should all be concerned if there was no agreement between the mayor and the assembly. The Minister posed the rhetorical question: How would we then obtain action? Democratic practice in this country has been that we proceed by agreement. In the new authority, if there is no agreement but there can still be action, we may find that at some point we are stepping into dangerous territory. With that slight hesitation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

I must point out to the Committee that if Amendment No. 328B is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 329 or 330.

moved Amendment No. 328B:

Page 129, line 33, leave out from ("effect,") to end of line 38 and insert ("the membership of the London Development Agency shall include—

(a) at least two elected members of the Assembly, and

(b) at least two elected members of a London borough council or the Common Council of the City of London.

() In this section a reference to elected members shall refer to their being elected members at the time of their appointment.").

Grouped with Amendment No. 328B are my Amendments Nos. 329, 330, 331, 332 and 352. They have somewhat similar but not quite identical purposes to those of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Amendment No. 329 seeks to ensure that the members of the London Development Agency who come from the London assembly, the Common Council of the City of London or a London borough council are there as of right. Thus it would not be possible in the first instance to appoint four members from that category in the Bill from one particular authority. So the amendment ensures that the representation comes from a wider area than would be possible under the drafting of the Bill, as I understand it.

Amendments Nos. 331 and 332 seek to delete from Clause 237, page 130, lines 1 and 6, the words, "appear to the Mayor to be persons". The mayor has to appoint people who are businessmen and not, as the wording of the Bill loosely puts it, "people who appear to be businessmen". I find that wording passing strange. That is the reason for the amendments.

Amendment No. 352 takes us to the relevant sub-paragraph of Schedule 20 towards the end of the Bill. Its purpose is to ensure that membership of those outside bodies is the prime qualification for serving on the London Development Agency. If the persons concerned cease to be members of the body from which they are appointed, they cease to be members of the London Development Agency and a successor must be appointed. Again, the purpose is deliberate, it is to ensure that the members appointed from the bodies—whether from one of the London borough councils or from the assembly—are active members of the body from which they come rather than someone who was, at the time of his appointment, a member of such a body.

As I understand the current drafting, someone from the Greater London Assembly could be appointed to serve on the London Development Agency and continue to serve on that body until the mayor chose to appoint his successor. That could take a long time and might go beyond the next election. That individual might have been away from the assembly for 10 years but would still be eligible if his appointment was continuous and it was not revised in that time. The Minister may say that that is an unlikely scenario, as it may well be. However, the fact is that under the present drafting that is a possibility. We should try to improve the drafting. It may be that the wording of my amendment is not as precise as the Minister or—perhaps more importantly—the parliamentary draftsman requires. Nevertheless, I ask the noble Lord to give serious consideration to these particular issues. I would be very happy if he was prepared to look at them and see whether some tightening of the drafting was desirable.

There is a certain element of déjà vu in relation to these amendments for reasons that are entirely different from the previous group. We went into many of these issues when we debated the Regional Development Agencies Bill, which is now an Act. Although we wish to have a minimum spread of experience on the agency board, we want people who can contribute to the aims of the board, in particular its economic ones, and who can act together with the various private and public institutions within the region. The same applies to London. People on the board are not representative in that sense; they are there because of their talents and experience.

Amendments Nos. 352 and 352A would allow the mayor to make it a condition of appointment that a member must resign, or cease to be chair or deputy chair, if he ceases to be an elected member of a local authority. We debated this matter at length in considering the RDA Bill. That kind of rigidity would not be conducive to the good working of the agency, and somebody of great experience could be removed directly if that happened. Clearly, the mayor must exercise a degree of judgment, but that rigidity is not appropriate. Nor is it desirable that local authority members should lose office automatically on ceasing to hold elected office. Presumably, former members of a London borough council, the Common Council of the City of London or the assembly, will still be able to bring valuable experience to the board's deliberations.

The Government have thought carefully about this in relation to this Bill and the wider context of RDAs. Clause 237 ensures that if there were only three such members on the board of the LDA the next appointment would have to be an additional member of such a council. This achieves much the same end, in that the representation of local authorities will be maintained but in a manner that is flexible and not too prescriptive.

Amendments Nos. 331 and 332 replace the requirement that half the board members including the chair must be persons who appear to the mayor to have experience of running a business to an absolute requirement that they have such experience. We have implemented the general policy on RDAs so that in London the LDA should be business-led, using a practical test which follows the model adopted for the Welsh Development Agency with some success over the years. At least half the board, including the chair, must be people who seem to the mayor to have experience of running a business. We do not wish to see anyone on the board who is there to represent a particular interest group, as would happen if Amendment No. 331 was accepted. Board members are there to use their skills and experience for the common good.

It is true that there may be many views as to what constitutes experience of running a business and the appearance of so doing. Nevertheless, this is a fairly common phraseology which indicates that the mayor is left with a degree of discretion in this area. I believe that it would be inappropriate, certainly on the face of the Bill, to remove that discretion. We are looking for people with experience and a balance of backgrounds, but the requirements in this set of amendments would be inappropriate from both points of view. I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendments.

The Minister appeared to deal with the group by starting at the end and finishing at the beginning. I am not sure that he has answered my point. My concentration may well have lapsed. My point was not related to subsection (10), to which I turn in my next amendment, but the division between members of the assembly and members of local authorities. Perhaps I should read the Minister's reply in Hansard and see whether the point has been covered.

In my opening sentence I indicated my belief that Amendment No. 328B and some of the other amendments fixed the requirement too rigidly in relation to local authority representation. I also indicated that we had been over these arguments once or twice before. I recall that the noble Baroness was herself involved in some of those exchanges. Perhaps I took a shortcut, for which I apologise.

I do not believe that I have been involved in this debate before because, by definition, it could not have arisen in the development agencies in the other regions. Hoy/ever, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

I must point out to the Committee that, if Amendment No. 330ZA is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 330A to 331A inclusive.

moved Amendment No. 330ZA:

Page 129, line 39, leave out subsection (10).

I rise to speak to Amendment No. 331A. Earlier, with reference to Amendment No. 328B, the noble Lord the Minister said, with what I think was a slightly wry smile, that we might all have different opinions about what running a business means. This amendment goes to the heart of that matter.

The mayor, for instance, may have no experience at all of business. He or she may have no reference point by which to judge the candidates wishing to be on the LDA. Indeed, he or she may well have rather a different opinion about running a business from that of the existing members of the LDA. I have been involved in business for 25 years, and I probably have some strange ideas about what running a business does and does not mean. So it is not necessarily the case that even those involved in business have all the answers, but they will probably have a better idea than the mayor, who may well have been immersed in politics for a number of years. That is no slur on any candidates for that office who are present today.

However, we suggest a rather different model. It seems to us sensible to have a shortlist of three drawn up by the London Business Board, which is effectively a triumvirate comprising the London Chamber of Commerce, London First and the CBI. We on these Benches suggest that that would be an effective way of making sure that the best candidates were sourced and then identified, so that from that shortlist of three the mayor could pick the appropriate candidates.

To answer the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the mayor is under a duty to consult in all of his functions, including this one, and with regard to the range of people and representatives to whom the noble Baroness refers.

Read literally, Amendment No. 330ZA would in effect remove the requirement that the board be business-led, and would therefore have almost the opposite effect to that which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, seeks. We have indicated that we want the RDAs to be business-led, and have implemented that policy in the RDAs generally. At least half the board, including the chairperson, must comprise people who have had experience of running a business. Once we stipulate the organisations that will nominate and put up a shortlist of three to the mayor—rather as, I assume, the Church of England puts up nominations for Bishops to the Prime Minister—they become representative of those who put them forward.

I recognise the importance of the three organisations that make up the London Business Board. Nevertheless, neither they nor anybody else should be regarded as having somebody who is representative of them on the board; representative of the kind of experience that their members have, certainly, but not nominated through a formal process as stipulated in Amendment No. 331A. Although I note the objectives of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I do not believe that the way in which he is seeking to achieve them is appropriate. I hope that the noble Baroness will seek leave to withdraw her amendment.

Before my noble friend replies, perhaps I may say that I am somewhat disappointed by what the noble Lord the Minster has said. I had hoped that he could, without accepting a need for the amendment to be on the face of the Bill, give a rather better nod in the direction of the way in which the organisations in question might be involved. I can think of few better people to be involved in rigorously examining the potential members of the London Development Agency than, for example, the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard of Didgemere, before whom a number of candidates have quailed in the past when seeking chief executive jobs. There is expertise there and it should be recognised. Simply relying on the mayor's judgment in those circumstances is not adequate.

Applicants may have quailed before the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard of Didgemere, but my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones was not here the other night when the noble Lord reassured the Committee, in a debate on chairs and chairmen, that he had always insisted on being called Allen, so they should not have quailed.

I accept that if we removed the requirement for business appointments, that would sink my noble friend's amendment, but we are exploring the whole area in general terms, so, although there may seem to be an inconsistency, there is no inconsistency in our inquiries. The point linking my noble friend's amendment and mine goes back to the Regional Development Agencies Act. The mayor is to be required to consult those who represent, employers in the agency's area. I hope that we shall at any rate receive an acknowledgement from the Minister that the organisations to which my noble friend referred will be among those consulted.

If the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is to ask whether this is a parallel form of consultation to that which is in the general RDA Act, the answer is "Yes", because subsection (10) effectively transposes that provision, with the exception to which the noble Baroness has referred.

We have exhausted this subject—for the moment, at any rate, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 333:

Page 130, line 7, at end insert—

("() Proposed members shall complete a declaration detailing their business interests, whether they have been made bankrupt, been a party to voluntary arrangements, whether there are any judgements against them, whether they have been convicted of any offence involving fraud or dishonesty or an offence under legislation (whether or not of the United Kingdom) relating to companies (including insider dealing), building societies, banking or other financial services, or if they have been disqualified as a director or of any other material information, and this declaration should be publicly available for inspection one month before appointment"").

The amendment requires proposed members of the LDA board to complete a declaration covering certain issues which might render them unsuitable to serve on the board. But it does not provide for what should happen at the end of the month during which the declaration is made publicly available. Therefore, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is apparently seeking to have publicity without seeking to use the classifications in his amendment as a means of debarring people from appointment.

We believe that the appointment process consists of the mayor seeking the views of interested parties on who might be appointed, then appointing the candidates of his or her choice. The suggestions made will inform but not constrain. The mayor will no doubt wish to vet potential appointees, but we believe that it would be inappropriate to specify in the detail proposed in the amendment as to how that should be clone.

It is fundamental that the mayor is given the responsibility for making key decisions and we do not wish to be unduly prescriptive. We believe that the amendment would be so. The mayor is answerable to the electorate for the quality of his or her decisions, and any mayor must be very well aware that public confidence in the LDA board is one of the preconditions for its success.

As the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, suggested, there is the constraint that if a member of the LDA becomes bankrupt" that is a valid ground for removal from office. That is one of the conditions that we accepted during the recent passage of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998. We believe that that is sufficient, and I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Having listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and to the Minister, I do not know whether I am alone in finding the Minister's response disappointing. There is considerable merit in the noble Lord's proposals, because board membership is an important job and half the board will be composed of business people. It is important that they are seen not to have conflicts of interest and that they have the confidence of Londoners in the running of the LDA.

The Minister did not suggest any alternatives and she did riot mention any drafting objections to the amendment. She said that the amendment was not appropriate, but she gave no real assurance that there would be a robust system for declarations of interest in any form. Perhaps she could explain the process as she envisages it. The situation can be tricky if people have wide business interests with some geographical overlap. It is important that those who belong to the LDA and become board members understand the considerable public transparency that is required of them. The amendment would go a long way to serve that.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is referring to two different issues. The amendment deals solely with prescribing on the face of the Bill the mechanism for identifying a particular set of past actions that we may all expect the mayor to take into account; it does not deal with the declaration of current interests. The issue to which the noble Lord spoke is dealt with elsewhere.

I hope that the Minister will excuse me for intervening again, but the amendment states:

"Proposed members shall complete a declaration detailing their business interests".

Then it continues by describing the other aspects.

Yes, but the issue to which the noble Lord spoke—and the important issue at this stage of the Bill—is whether publicity is given to the declaration of interests. The noble Lord will find that other parts of the Bill deal with declarations of interest.

I regret to say that I found the Minister's response disappointing, although I would accept that perhaps the amendment we have proposed is deficient because it does not propose a specific line of action as a consequence of an aspect of the declaration revealing, shall we say, a flaw in a person's curriculum vitae that should disbar him or her from sitting on the board of the LDA. I wondered for a few optimistic moments whether, if we could come to an agreement on the additional words that would be necessary to bring that about, the Government might be willing to accept the amendment. Subsequently, the Minister left me with the view that I was being wildly optimistic.

Whether we put the point on the face of the Bill or not, the mayor would be wise to require such a declaration of anybody he was proposing to put on the board of the LDA. It could be argued that that is a different matter that should be left to the mayor's discretion, but our job is to secure a situation in which only the highest ethical and business standards apply in the management and direction of the LDA. Without a mandatory provision, such as contained in the amendment, the process will not pass muster when we consider whether we have done our best to safeguard the future of London.

I suspect that Schedule 2, paragraph 8, of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 was the subject of the Minister's comments when she said that declarations of interest were dealt with later in the Bill. That paragraph simply requires declarations of members' interests case by case, after the event, but that is not as full a requirement as that envisaged by the amendment.

No businessman who should be considered for such a nomination would find it strange to agree to such a declaration, because we sign such things all the time for the Stock Exchange and for other purposes. We would not put off anyone who should not be put off by the process.

I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and my noble friend Lord Sheppard on this important issue. I invite the Minister to consider what has been said. I shall also consider what has been said, but we will need to return to the matter at the next stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

I have to point out to the Committee that, if Amendment No. 334 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 334A to 334C inclusive.

moved Amendment No. 334:

Page 130, line 14, leave out subsection (2).

Amendments Nos. 334A and 334B seek to exercise some constraint on the considerable powers given to the mayor. Our amendments provide for the assembly to have a role in that its approval would be required.

In replying to the amendment, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, will allow me to put on the record that we always read and consider very carefully the points that are raised during debate on any of the amendments.

Section 6 of the Regional Development Agencies Act provides for the delegation of certain functions, described as "eligible" functions, by Ministers to RDAs and lays down the conditions under which such delegations can be made, varied and revoked. Clause 238 amends Section 6 so that a Minister may delegate any eligible function to the mayor or, with the mayor's consent, to the LDA. Such delegations are to be under the same terms as delegations to RDAs outside London, which includes making the delegation subject to such conditions as the Minister sees fit.

Any such delegated function can be further delegated by the mayor to the LDA under Clause 31 of the Bill. However, if it is delegated to the LDA in this way, the mayor is obliged to attach conditions to this delegation to ensure that the conditions attached by the Minister to the original delegation are satisfied. Amendment No. 334 would ensure that Ministers could only delegate economic development functions, under the Regional Development Agencies Act, to the LDA and not to the mayor and that the mayor's consent would not be required for that. Therefore, the amendment would undermine our proposals.

Amendments Nos. 334A and 334B would require the assembly's consent for ministerial functions to be delegated to the LDA or to the mayor. It is fundamental to the model of government that we are proposing that the mayor should play an executive decision-taking role and the assembly provide scrutiny of the mayor's actions. The role of the assembly is to hold the mayor to account for the way in which his functions are exercised. That is a model for good, accountable administration and is the principle that runs through the Bill.

Amendment No. 334C seeks to delegate to the LDA a miscellany of functions and funding regimes. The first of these is, in fact, already provided for in Section 36 of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998. This allows the Secretary of State to direct the Urban Regeneration Agency to transfer to RDAs appropriate properties, rights and liabilities as a consequence of the RDAs carrying out the functions of the URA in their regions. I can assure the noble Lord that we intend to make such a transfer, when the LDA is established, on 3rd July next year.

The second would go beyond the functions delegated to other RDAs and, indeed, was debated during the passage of the RDA Bill. Assisted areas define where government can give specified financial support to industries, and we have decided that this should be reserved for Ministers as at present. The RDAs will, however, have an important role in advising on applications for assistance.

The third would allow for Ministers to delegate to the LDA the administrative functions of the structural funds, currently carried out by the Government Office for London. Like the RDAs elsewhere, the LDA is likely to be a recipient of structural funds and it would therefore be inappropriate for the LDA to allocate as well.

The fourth would specify that administration of the SRB in London should be delegated to the LDA.

We have not reached Amendment No. 334C. I certainly do not want my noble friend to feel that he cannot make his point, although he is listening intently to the answer.

I apologise to the Committee. Two things have happened. First, my noble friend the Minister is at present appearing before a Select Committee and, secondly, the amendments have been ungrouped. Therefore, I was not as fully prepared as noble Lords could reasonably expect for this group of amendments. I apologise to the noble Lord. Lord Clement-Jones.

I was responsible for the degrouping. I did so so that my noble friend could make his point with great eloquence and with his customary brevity.

As I understand what the Minister said and what has been said elsewhere, the property role of English Partnerships will be picked up within the LDA. If I am right about that, it is really a question of the detail of how that is to happen. Some key sites in London are sensibly handled nationally with English Partnerships. The Dome, the whole of the Greenwich peninsula and the Royal docks are examples. When those property functions are delegated, those will presumably come back within the orbit of the mayor and LDA.

Perhaps it would help the Minister if I made my speech on Amendment No. 334C at this juncture as it is a probing amendment. That will give the Minister an opportunity to consider the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard.

It is extremely important that certain powers are delegated to the mayor and to the authority. It is important that we get regional government right. This will be the first of what we on these Benches hope will be a model to be followed elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Therefore, the delegated powers that are passed down to the mayor will be of great importance.

There is no doubt that the current powers of the DETR are of considerable importance. The Government Office for London exercises considerable powers. I was a director of Brixton Challenge for a number of years and I know that the financial power that was exercised by GOL was considerable and was often extremely beneficial. But it is important that we ensure fairly and squarely that the mayor and the assembly have the resources that they need to tackle the problems of London.

I said that this is a probing amendment. We have tried to pick the four most important elements that would be needed by the mayor in order to have a proper regeneration strategy for London. For instance, the strategic sites owned by English Partnerships—the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, mentioned this point—are extremely important. Unless the mayor has the right to control those, he will have one hand tied behind his back when he is trying to devise a regeneration strategy for London.

Secondly, if one does not have the right to consider the assistance given in assisted areas which are relevant to London, one will not have the ability to regenerate in some of those key deprived areas of London. Thirdly, the allocation of European Union structural funds have been for many years an important resource. Fourthly, the fact that boroughs fight greatly over the resources represented by the single regeneration budget—until recently called the challenge budget; it is now a much broader animal—indicates the importance of those resources to London. Assurances by the Government that those are the kinds of powers that they plan to delegate to the mayor would be useful and important. Indeed, it would be interesting to hear about other powers the Government plan to delegate.

I shall attempt seamlessly to move from the start of my reply to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, before he spoke without repeating the answer.

The noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, asked whether the LDA will have responsibility for the English Partnerships' areas in London. Yes, but not for the Dome and the peninsula in particular. The other examples he gave were different. The LDA has a broad range of functions. The delegated functions are intended to allow a delegation of funding regimes such as SRB or other particular functions that fit within the general framework of RDA powers. It is fundamental to the style of government being created that the mayor is given responsibility for making key decisions. The LDA is an executive body working to and supporting the mayor. In the end the mayor is answerable to the electorate for the quality of his or her decisions. To give the LDA board the power to take on extra functions, possibly against the mayor's wishes, would be a recipe for conflict and would undermine the close working relationship between the two.

I hope that in reading Hansard the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will feel that in total the points he raised have been replied to. If not, I shall be only too pleased to write to him in detail so that we can ensure that his questions are answered properly; and I shall of course send a copy to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith.

I thank the Minister for that reply in two parts. I recall to some degree the former replies. I hope that at Report stage the Minister can give somewhat more concrete assurances. The noble Baroness gave assurances over SRB. She gave some welcome assurances in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard. I suspect that the replies over EU funding and assisted areas funding were not so satisfactory. We shall read Hansard, mark the reply out of 10 and return to the issue at another time.

Having moved the original amendment, I shall study with interest the subsequent debate. I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

If Amendment No. 335 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 335A through pre-emption.

moved Amendment No. 335:

Page 131, line 3, leave out from beginning to ("a") in line 4 and insert ("submit to the Mayor, the Assembly, the London boroughs and the Common Council of the City of London").

We may stop banging our heads against the wall, but the pain will not go away if we have not convinced the Government to tweak their model and leave London with the form of authority that we think would be best. Of course, there are varying views across the Chamber.

I shall speak briefly to my amendments in this group. The first amendment, Amendment No. 335, takes me back—it may not do so for others—to the debates that we had about consultation on the mayor's strategies, of which the London Development Agency strategy is one. During those debates, I was worried about the distinction between creating a strategy and exercising the functions so far as consultation is concerned. In most business organisations, a strategy is determined before one does something that one has identified as being necessary in the strategy. The noble Lord's speech in support of the amendment provides a good example. It is important that the strategies obtain as wide a consensus and support as possible through a consultation process in order to reduce the areas of dispute when the functions come to be exercised. In that sense, I agree with the noble Lord's approach to the matter.

Our Amendment No. 335A in this group makes a similar point by saying that the LDA should have regard to the views of the assembly when it presents its strategy to the mayor; in other words, there should be some co-operation. Amendment No. 336A requires the submission of the strategy—the previous amendment referred to the draft strategy—to the assembly. Amendment No. 347YA seeks to remove the requirement that the mayor should have regard to the Secretary of State's guidance when it is referred to in this context in relation to the exercise of the LDA's functions.

I wonder whether that is necessary as we have been told on other occasions—possibly in the context of consultation rather than guidance, but it begins to blur slightly—that those who will carry out these offices must act reasonably and follow guidance, consult or whatever. Having done that, they must then have regard to any comments in response or, in this case, have regard to the guidance. I am a little unclear as to whether some inconsistency runs through the Bill. However, the noble Lord's central point is important—and perhaps not just with regard to the LDA's strategy.

If the Minister is not certain about which of the amendments I am commenting on, that probably makes two of us! I refer to the general area of delegation and input into the strategies.

The Government may have to consider one area of strategy against the background of the recent White Paper on the subject of skills. We shall clearly not achieve economic regeneration in London or an inclusive society unless we do dramatically better than we have done in the past 50 years in the area of skills development. The Government's RDA guidelines call for a regional skills strategy. That is not laid down in the strategies, but it is implicit in them.

While they are reviewing other authorities and inputs, will the Government examine the recent White Paper, Learning to Succeed, which attempted to carry forward the debate a long way and to achieve inputs on that subject? Will the Government consider whether that has any implications for the GLA Bill? How will we ensure that the mayor and the LDA are involved fully in that skills improvement?

Amendment No. 335 would require the draft strategy to be sent to the assembly, the boroughs and the City of London. That is unnecessary because such consultation is required already by virtue of Clause 34 to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred. The noble Baroness recalled from our debate in Committee on Clause 34 that persons whom the mayor is obliged to consult about any proposed strategy include the boroughs and the Common Council. We recognise their special role in taking decisions on an economic development strategy for London, and they will be consulted by the mayor.

In moving the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, recognised the wider theme of partnership. If people have a legitimate interest in the strategy—as the local London authorities will certainly have—it is inconceivable that they will not be involved fully in the development of that strategy. Unless there is a dialogue with the interested parties, the LDA's strategy will not secure support and will not be successful. That does not mean that these bodies should have the right to veto or to vet the strategy. In some cases, the LDA, will have to take hard decisions. However, at the same time, it will aim to carry the bodies with it if the strategy is to be meaningful.

The noble Baroness referred also to the removal of the mayor's power of direction over the LDA as proposed in Amendment No. 344, which would possibly increase the likelihood that the draft strategy would fail to meet the mayor's requirements. If this amendment were agreed to, it would be unhelpful to the agency and would put great stress on the power of the mayor to modify the strategy. The mayor's power of direction—covering contents, preparation, submission and review of the strategy; this point is relevant to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith—parallels the power of the Secretary of State to direct RDAs outside London on their strategies. It will provide a framework within which the LDA, which is essentially an executive arm of the mayor, can produce its draft. There would be little point in the LDA producing a draft strategy that did not reflect the mayor's views as the mayor is ultimately responsible for the strategy and has the power to modify the draft.

However, the noble Baroness and the noble Lord have raised an interesting point and we shall consider whether the mayor's power to direct is too heavy-handed. In saying that and in agreeing to consider this point, I must stress that the mayor must be happy with the strategy for which he or she is responsible.

We believe that Amendments Nos. 3.35A, 336A, 337, 338, 339A, 340 and 346—I read those out most carefully to ensure that we are considering the same grouping—would undermine the separation of powers on which the GLA's structure is based and would require the mayor and assembly jointly to agree what modifications should be made to the LDA's draft strategy. If the assembly took part in the joint exercise of these executive functions, it would be unable to perform its scrutiny role with respect to the LDA strategy.

Amendment No. 341 would require the assembly and the mayor to modify the strategy, if it were rejected by a third of the boroughs and the Common Council of the City of London. However, it does not provide any mechanism by which the assembly and the mayor could jointly agree on the revisions to be made. In any case, we believe that the provision would be unworkable. It seems a little undemocratic if the wishes of two-thirds, who would presumably be supporting the strategy, were overridden by the views of a minority.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, raised the issue of directions from the Secretary of State. We have proposed that the Secretary of State should be able to give guidance on matters to be covered or issues to be taken into account in the strategy. That would be possible only if this ran counter to national policy or could cause detriment to areas outside London. That point was raised in earlier debates by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. We believe that these are the minimum central controls necessary to ensure, first, that the mayor has power to act and, secondly, that the mayor is not able to compromise issues of national importance or of importance to other regions.

The noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, mentioned the skills strategy. It is a key function of all the RDAs, including the LDA. Amendment No. 347YA would remove part of that minimum framework which guarantees the structure in which the various powers come together. Therefore, I hope that noble Lords feel able to withdraw the amendment.

I understand the noble Baroness's comment about tweaking. However, I am sure that she recognises a coherence to the proposals before the Committee.

I am ready to accept the fact that there is a coherence, but I hope that the Minister will accept our need to record that it is a coherence we do not support and that we are doing so increasingly briefly.

In dealing with the mayor's regard to guidance, the Minister referred to complying with national policy and the directions that are given if the Secretary of State believes that there will be a detriment to an area outside Greater London. Will the Minister confirm that those points would limit in Clause 240 the new Section 7B(1)? It states:

"The Secretary of State may give guidance … with respect to … the matters to be covered by that strategy or … the issues to be taken into account in preparing or revising that strategy".

It is my understanding that that is the case. Should I be mistaken, I shall inform the noble Baroness and other Members of the Committee.

We have had an interesting debate. I am particularly grateful to the Minister for the slight hint of give in her approach to directions by the mayor. I shall study them with care and I shall need to study everything that has been said in the debate before deciding what to do at the next stage of the Bill In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 336:

Page 131, line 5, at end insert ("which shall respect and take full account of the differing economic interests of the London boroughs and the City of London").

We have tabled three amendments in this group: Amendments Nos. 341A, 341B and 347XA. The latter amendment is consequential on the first two.

Under new Section 7A(5), when the London Development Agency and three of the functional bodies named exercise a function they should have regard to the London Development Agency's strategy. I can see the obvious connection between the regeneration activities, the LDA strategy and what Transport for London may be doing.

The relevance to the Metropolitan Police Authority and the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority is less obvious. In any event, I wonder how appropriate it is to require that the emergency services, in exercising a function, are to have regard to an economic and regeneration strategy. I have some trouble in seeing a connection. If there is one, I might question it.

I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard of Didgemere, now understands that he is not alone in occasionally being slightly unsure as to which point we have reached. Amendment No. 336 would require that the LDA strategy should take account of the different economic interests of the boroughs and the City. It is not necessary, and it would look rather odd, to put the LDA under a statutory obligation to take account of the differing economic interests of various areas of London. Given its diversity, it is not credible that any such agency, led by experienced businessmen and women, would do otherwise or would be blind to their needs.

Amendment No. 336, together with Amendment No. 347, would require that the strategy, as revised from time to time, and all drafts of the strategy, shall be published together with an explanation of any revisions. The mayor will have to publish the revised strategies—there would be little point to them otherwise—and they will therefore be in the public domain. It would be undesirable and unnecessary to introduce special provisions for publishing previous drafts of the strategy. That could lead to great confusion. In time, when the strategy is revised, the new strategy could hardly gain the confidence of those whose co-operation is required for its realisation if reasons were not given for important changes. We are sure that the mayor would want to do that.

Amendment No. 336 requires that the LDA strategy takes account of the differing economic interests of the boroughs and the City. It is not really necessary to specify that and it would look rather odd.

As regards the amendment obliging the MPA and the LFEPA to have regard to the LDA strategy, that would remove a cornerstone of our design for the GLA; namely, that the strategies should all come together within a coherent framework within which the work is conducted. It is just as essential for the LDA strategy to reflect consultations with the other functional bodies, as we have provided

I appreciate the point that the noble Baroness has raised. There may be issues on which that policy is not relevant concerning, for example, many operational matters. The police are frequently involved in regeneration projects such as crime prevention and state security. So there could be over-arching strategies where that is relevant. I hope that I have covered the points raised.

As regards the connection between the LDA, the police and others, I wonder whether that is to reflect the role of the police in crime prevention and the comments that they might make in advising on whether large-scale regeneration was appropriate and that there might be inherent problems. I very much support the moves to be made at a far more local level than is anticipated to "design out" crime. I believe that is the current terminology. That work is very important. Because it is important, I remain a little anxious that the relationship puts the London Development Agency in a dominant position. In other words, the police and the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority may have good advice to offer, but they have to have regard to the strategy of the LDA.

I believe the position may become clearer when we reach Amendment No. 347WA. We believe that the proposals being put forward by the noble Baroness are too detailed to be effective. We understand the points that she has raised, but they are covered.

I am grateful to the Minister for her reply which I shall study with care. I believe that matters would be a little clearer if we heard how the executive agencies were complying with the LDA strategy in the requirement that we have put on them to report to the mayor and the assembly on how they are complying. That might relieve some anxieties. I am not certain that the noble Baroness has responded adequately to that point. None the less, I am grateful to her for her reply which I shall study with care. I beg leave to withdraw the: amendment.

moved Amendment No. 347WA:

Page 131, line 32, after ("publishing") insert ("or revising").

I am afraid that we are unable to agree to these amendments. Amendment No. 347WA would require consultation before the mayor revises the strategy. Subsection (7) of the proposed new Section 7A to the RDA Act, introduced by Clause 239, requires that revised strategies are published which ensure that consultation takes place by virtue of subsection (8). The amendment is, therefore, unnecessary, as the effect is already achieved.

The noble Baroness did not mention Amendment No. 347XA. Perhaps she did so earlier.

I spoke to it in one sentence earlier.

Amendment No. 347XA adds Transport for London, the Metropolitan Police Authority and the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority to the list of consultees in subsection (8) of the new Section 7A of the RDA Act. That subsection adds only to the list of consultees in Clause 34 of the Bill and the functional bodies are included in Clause 34. So we have already made the provision which the noble Baroness seeks.

Amendment No. 347ZA would require the mayor to consult on a strategy which had been revised following a direction from the Secretary of State. A direction can only be issued after a strategy has been published. It is very much a reserve power. Before publication, the strategy must have been the subject of consultation. The amendment would therefore require a second consultation in the rare circumstances of the direction being issued. We cannot see that that would be appropriate or constructive. I hope that the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment No. 347XA takes us back not just to earlier provisions of the Bill but to the provisions of the Regional Development Agencies Act in which the clause in question, in effect, means that before publishing the LDA strategy, the mayor has to consult the people under the RDA Act whom she or he has to consult in making appointments, which is not the same as formulating the strategy. Those two groups of people are representatives of employers and employees.

At the end of the Committee stage I shall read all that has been said about the various connections. I wonder whether I shall be able to understand the connections without drawing charts, given the cross-references to different pieces of legislation originally drafted, as I have just illustrated, for other purposes. I anticipate that I may not succeed—perhaps I am arrogant to suggest that I would apply a reasonable degree of intelligence to such a task—in drawing up such a chart. I believe that it will be extremely difficult for the authority, comprising the mayor, the assembly and the various functional bodies, together with the responsibilities in this case of the London Development Agency, to operate. It will be extremely difficult to keep track of whom, under the legislation, they are required to consult, whose views they are required to have regard to and whether they are required to consult about appointments or little bits of their activities.

We have already said how concerned we are about the prescription in the Bill. We accept that this is the Government's way of dealing with matters. We believe that there should be broad obligations for consultation and broad obligations for having regard to people's views. If we get to the end of this stage—I do not believe I speak only for myself as I see that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith is nodding—and we are still confused, there will have to be some effort made to make life simpler for those who will operate the system.

Amendment No. 347XA adds further to the list of consultees. I understand the concern raised by the noble Baroness. I see the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, nodding. If it would help, I shall write to the noble Baroness on this matter, with a copy to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, so that we can seek to clarify the situation. I agree to consider carefully any points that they raise.

That would be extremely helpful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

I beg to move that the House do now resume.

My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement on relations with Libya, which has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. The Statement is as follows:

"I should like to make a Statement on relations with Libya. I am grateful to the Opposition for agreeing to this important Statement being made on a supply day.

"For over a decade two separate issues have prevented us from maintaining normal diplomatic relations with Libya.

"One of these was the refusal by Libya to hand over the two men charged with responsibility for the bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie. As the House will be aware, the diplomatic stalemate over this issue was broken by our initiative in offering a trial under Scottish law in the Netherlands. Intensive and patient diplomacy produced an agreement by Libya in April to hand over both suspects. The two accused are currently held in the court complex at Camp Zeist where we expect their trial to commence early next year. This will give the relatives of those who died and the public their first opportunity to hear all the evidence we hold.

"UN sanctions were imposed on Libya in 1992 as a result of its refusal to comply with the investigations into the Lockerbie bombing and the parallel UTA case. Following the surrender of the two accused, sanctions on Libya have been suspended.

"However, diplomatic relations between Libya and the United Kingdom had already been broken off before the Lockerbie bombing. They ceased in 1984 when we broke off diplomatic relations over the refusal by Libya to co-operate with the investigation into the killing of WPC Yvonne Fletcher, who was shot while carrying out her duties in front of the Libyan People's Bureau in St James's Square.

"In the weeks since the handover of the two Lockerbie suspects, we have been engaged in repeated exchanges with the Libyan Government in an attempt to secure their co-operation with the police investigation. Throughout these negotiations, over some weeks, we have consulted fully with the Metropolitan Police and through them with the Fletcher family. Earlier this afternoon, I met with Mr Obeidi of the Libyan Government and we have finalised a joint statement.

"In that statement, Libya accepts general responsibility for the actions of those in the Libyan People's Bureau at the time of the shooting. They express deep regret to the family of WPC Fletcher for what occurred and offer to pay compensation now to the family. Libya agrees 'to participate in and co-operate with the continuing police investigation and to accept its outcome.'

"I have placed a full text of the joint statement in the Library of the House. It fully meets the objectives pursued by successive British Governments since 1984 and it is supported by the Metropolitan Police and the Fletcher family. No amount of payment can ever compensate the Fletcher parents for the loss of their daughter, but the agreement to make compensation now is a welcome recognition by Libya of its responsibility.

"The way is now open for the police to pursue their investigation into the killing of Yvonne Fletcher. That investigation will be pursued as far as it can and we expect Libya to co-operate at all stages.

"The two agreements we have secured also open the way for us to resume diplomatic relations with Libya. I am upgrading immediately the British Interests Section in Tripoli to embassy status. We will, as quickly as practical, appoint an ambassador and bring the embassy up to full strength. As a result, the 4,000 or so British citizens resident in Libya will have restored to them full consular protection and we will be able to provide appropriate support to British commercial interests. Full diplomatic representation will also enable us better to monitor Libyan co-operation with the Lockerbie trial and the police investigation into the killing of Yvonne Fletcher.

"Today's announcement brings to an end 15 years throughout which relations between our two countries were suspended. I should like to record our thanks to the Government of Italy for their assistance throughout those years as the protecting power of British interests in Libya.

"Before concluding, I would ask the House once again to pay tribute to Yvonne Fletcher, a young woman who gave her life to the service of law and order. Her family have suffered not only her loss but the added pain of 15 years in which its investigation has been blocked. They have borne it with dignity and fortitude. I would express on behalf of the whole House our deep sympathy to them. I hope that the agreement we have secured today will open the way for them to learn more about what happened on that fateful day."

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place, giving details of the Government's joint statement with the Libyan Government. Front these Benches, I should like to welcome the progress in Anglo-Libyan relations contained in the document. Perhaps the Minister will be able to assist me on one point. I was not completely clear whether one of the two agreements to which she referred when repeating the Statement included the full text of the joint statement. If it does not, can the Minister clarify what the two agreements mentioned in the third paragraph before the end of Statement refer to? If they are separate from the agreements that she has already agreed to make public, will the noble Baroness ensure that both of them will also be placed in the Library of the House? It will be very important for your Lordships to read them.

From these Benches, we have always been of the opinion that Libya must accept responsibility and express regret for the appalling murder of WPC Yvonne Fletcher, as well as providing compensation agreeable to her family. It has always been our view that Libya must co-operate fully with the investigation into her murder. The Minister has said that the Government now expect Libya to co-operate at all stages with this investigation. Therefore, can she tell us whether she expects this will entail efforts by the Libyan authorities to identify and specifically bring to justice the murderer of WPC Fletcher? If so, would the same procedures as those currently in place for the trial of the Lockerbie suspects also be used to try any person accused of her murder?

The relatives of those killed in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 will be following these developments closely. Can the Minister tell the House what discussions the 'Government have held with them concerning today 's announcement and what their reaction has been to the agreed compensation to the family of WPC Fletcher, which is symbolic of the guilt of the Libyan regime?

The Minister also referred to the UN sanctions against Libya. As she is aware, those sanctions are currently suspended, not lifted. Does the Minister envisage that the UK will now press for those sanctions to be lifted? It would be helpful if the Minister could inform the House what discussions have been held on this matter with our partners in the Security Council, in particular with the United States Government.

There has been undisputed evidence in the past of Libyan support for terrorists, particularly the IRA. Can the Minister assure the House that all training of terrorists and material support for their activities has now stopped, including support of rebel groups in West Africa?

In view of the highly successful business mission led by my noble friend Lord Prior in his capacity as chairman of the Arab-British Chamber of Commerce some three weeks ago, on which I understand my noble friend Lord Trefgarne accompanied him, and given the newly restored bilateral links and the opportunity that this presents for the development of both cultural and commercial contacts between our two countries, can the Minister clarify the status of the business delegation proposed by the British-Libyan Business Group'? Following the confusion earlier this week between the Foreign Office and the Department for Trade and Industry, does this delegation now have the support of the Foreign Office? From these Benches, we hope that the restoration of full diplomatic ties will prove to be a turning point in our relations with Libya and, critically, in Libya's relations with the rest of the world.

Finally, I should like to associate these Benches with the tribute paid by the Minister to the dignity and fortitude of the Fletcher family. We are very pleased that this outcome has their full support. Although today's Statement marks what we hope is a new chapter in Anglo-Libyan relations, no one in this House will ever forget the bravery of the young WPC who in doing her duty paid with her life.

My Lords, perhaps I may also thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. I should like to say how delighted we are that diplomatic relations have been resumed with Libya; indeed, that will open very real opportunities for business people and others in the United Kingdom. I should also like to express a few words of thanks to the Government of Italy for the conscientious way in which they carried out the representation of British interests in Libya over a long period of time, which they could not have envisaged when they first agreed to do so.

I have three questions for the Minister. The first goes further into the subject of the killing of WPC Fletcher. I fully share and endorse every word said by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and by the Minister about the extraordinary courage and conscientiousness of this young woman who lost her life in serving law and order in this country. Can the Minister tell the House whether the Government know the names of those who were present in the so-called "People's Bureau" at the time and whether their names have been made available to the Metropolitan Police? Compensation is one thing, but trying to find out who perpetrated this terrible crime so that nothing of the kind can ever happen again is, if anything, even more important.

Given the willingness of Libya to co-operate over the Lockerbie air crash after a long period of negotiation, I wonder whether consideration could be given to whether Libya would be willing to extradite anyone who might be soundly suspected of involvement in the murder of WPC Fletcher. Perhaps I may also pay tribute to the endurance and the great patience shown by her family.

My second question concerns the debts still owing to British firms from the period before the breach in diplomatic relations. My understanding is that some hundreds of millions of dollar-equivalents are owed to British firms from the period prior to the breaking off of relations after WPC Fletcher's murder. Can the Minister give any enlightenment at all on the issue of whether those outstanding debts are likely to be settled at any foreseeable time?

My third and final question concerns the issue of diplomatic relations between the United States and the Government of Libya. The Minister will be aware that Helms-Burton still applies, although it is somewhat more honoured in the breach than in the observance by many American business interests. Can the noble Baroness say whether any representations are being made by Her Majesty's Government in Washington for the reconsideration of Helms-Burton, which I believe has caused quite a lot of strain on diplomatic relations not only with Libya but also with many other countries with which we in the United Kingdom would wish to see much happier and closer relations in future?

My Lords, I thank both the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, for their warm welcome of my right honourable friend's Statement today. I thank them not only for what they said but also for the way in which they said it. I join with them in paying tribute to the family of WPC Fletcher. I echo in this House the sentiments expressed by my right honourable friend in the Statement and by both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness on the dignity and bearing of the Fletcher family during what must have been an anguished time for them.

The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, referred to the agreements. The relevant agreements relating to the initiative for the Lockerbie trial in the Netherlands have been placed in the Library, as has the text of the joint statement agreed between Her Majesty's Government and the Libyan Government. There are two separate agreements—two separate pieces of paper, if I can put it that way—and both texts are available for inspection in your Lordships' House.

The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, asked me about the way in which the Libyans will be expected to give some practical impact to their undertaking to co-operate with the investigation. The investigation will be carried out by the Metropolitan Police. It is envisaged initially that the investigation will take the form of a commission rogatoire; that is, an investigation in writing. The Metropolitan Police will send questions to the Libyan judicial authorities who will bring individual witnesses before them to answer those questions. The agreement does not rule out further investigations being carried out under other procedures. That is what I am able to tell the noble Lord at this stage about the way it is envisaged that the investigation will begin. Its development will be a matter for the Metropolitan Police. We are extremely pleased to have the commitment of the Libyan Government and the Libyan authorities to continue with their co-operation throughout that investigation. However, as I say, that is the way that it will begin.

The noble Baroness asked whether we had the names of those who were in the People's Bureau at the time. We do because they were accredited diplomats. I cannot tell the noble Baroness whether that is a full list of who was there on the day. However, we would certainly know the names of the accredited diplomats at that time. That information will be available to the investigating authority. It is a matter for that authority as to how it pursues individuals. We have the basic statement from the Libyans that they accept what the coroner's court said about where the shot came from. However, that is not the same as establishing who was responsible for the shot that was fired.

The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, asked about the procedures that might be used to prosecute anyone who might eventually be accused of this appalling crime. He suggested that they might be the same as were established for the prosecution in relation to the atrocity committed on Pan Am Flight 103. The regime in the Netherlands at the moment was set up under a UNSCR. I believe that it is a unique measure. However, I point out to your Lordships that the proceedings in the Netherlands are subject to Scottish law whereas the matter we are discussing would be prosecuted under English law. I rather doubt whether the same mechanisms will be available to us simply because the case in the Netherlands was established under a UNSCR and because we shall be dealing with the case of WPC Fletcher under English law and not Scottish law. However, the way in which any prosecution would be carried out is a matter that we shall have to consider as the investigation proceeds.

The noble Lord also asked about discussions with the Lockerbie families. Officials in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have discussed the statement on WPC Fletcher, but, more importantly, the re-establishing of diplomatic relations, with all the families of the British people involved in that atrocity. I am sure that individual families are either more or less enthusiastic about that but none has expressed any fundamental misgivings about the re-establishing of diplomatic relations, given what we have been able to establish in both the documents detailed in your Lordships' House.

The noble Lord also asked about the lifting of sanctions. The noble Baroness asked about the relationship of the Americans vis-à-vis Libya and the fate of the Helms-Burton legislation. I shall try to draw those two threads together. Her Majesty's Government believe that it is for the Americans to decide how they take forward their bilateral relationship with Libya. We met the Americans and the Libyans on 11th June, together with the UN Secretary General, to discuss how to move forward on the remaining requirements of the UN Security Council resolutions so that sanctions can be finally lifted. The UN Secretary General reported on 2nd July that there had been what he described as significant progress, but not yet full compliance with the Security Council resolutions. We shall continue to meet to discuss the matter. There will not be any hidden agenda. When Libya has fully complied Her Majesty's Government will not oppose the lifting of sanctions. However, as the noble Baroness knows, on the rather different question of the Helms-Burton legislation, Her Majesty's Government have always opposed the extra-territorial nature of the Helms-Burton legislation, not only in relation to Libya but also in relation to other countries where the Americans have introduced such legislation.

The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, asked about Libyan support for terrorism. I believe that when he has had the opportunity to study the agreed statement in the Library of your Lordships' House, he will see that the Libyans have said unequivocally that they are opposed to the use of terrorism. They have condemned terrorism and have pledged to co-operate in the international fight against it. As regards the worries which have been expressed in certain quarters about their previous relationship with the IRA, the previous administration stated on 25th November 1995 that they were satisfied that the Libyan Government had met expectations with regard to ceasing to have that kind of relationship with the IRA.

The noble Lord also referred to the trade group. I do not believe that there has been what the noble Lord described as confusion over this. The British-Libyan Business Group first approached us in May when our discussions were at a sensitive stage. At that time I believe that it would have been premature of the Government to endorse participation of MPs in that venture. Advice was given through the Whips' Office which reflected that view. In recent days we are aware that there has been more positive progress in our negotiations and we have clarified that there is no objection to participation by MPs in this matter. As the noble Lord would expect, throughout all this we have kept in close contact with our colleagues in the DTI to ensure that we are indulging in joined-up government.

The noble Baroness referred to debts. Now that we have restored diplomatic relations we can open up discussions on a full range of outstanding issues. I know that the question of debt is a worrying one. It will, of course, be included in those discussions. I join with the noble Baroness in expressing thanks to the Italian Government for the way they have looked after our interests over the past 15 years. My right honourable friend made that clear in his Statement but I am sure that my own Benches in your Lordships' House would wish me to add my voice to those thanks.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for repeating the full Statement. I hope that she can clarify a point on compensation. I may have misheard the relevant part of the Statement in that regard. First, is there an agreement at present in principle to pay compensation, or has a definite amount been agreed already? If it is a question of principle, who is to adjudicate on the issue of the quantum amount in relation to that payment? Will the Fletcher family be fully consulted about that and given access to legal assistance paid for by the state? Whether or not legal aid is available to them, will they receive very full advice about that matter?

Secondly, would it not be appropriate for this very brave young woman's memory to be perpetuated? There is already, of course, an indication in the square where she fell, but perhaps my noble friend will think it appropriate to consider the possibility—I do not ask her to be definite at this stage—of a more lasting memorial than that which exists at the present time. It would be much appreciated by the country as a whole.

My Lords, as to the question of compensation, I should point out that we are now in a different position from the one before when an ex gratia payment to a charity was offered. The Libyans have now offered compensation to the family. That is a very important distinction. The noble Lord asked about the way in which the compensation was to be fixed and about the advice available to the family. The family of WPC Fletcher have asked that the arrangements surrounding the compensation—and in particular the amount—remain confidential. I believe that the amount is irrelevant; it is the principle involved that is important. It is the fact that the Libyans have acknowledged that this is not an ex gratia payment but compensation that is important. I would ask your Lordships to respect the wishes and confidentiality of the family. It has been a desperately painful time for them and if we can help to alleviate that by not being too intrusive, that will be to the good.

My noble friend is right to say that there is a memorial to WPC Fletcher. Quite rightly, and rather movingly, it is often adorned with flowers. Whether it is appropriate that some other memorial should be considered is a matter I am sure everyone will wish to consider. Again I would point out to your Lordships that it is not just a matter for the country, as my noble friend put it, but one where we should take into account the wishes of WPC Fletcher's family, her friends and the Metropolitan Police.

My Lords, as someone who has been involved on the extreme fringes of this matter for a number of years, I share the welcome expressed by my noble friend Lord Moynihan and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, for the Statement. Perhaps I may ask one question. The Minister has said that it is intended we should shortly appoint an ambassador to Libya. Is it intended that the Libyans should appoint an ambassador in London? If so, when might that happen?

My Lords, it is intended that we resume full diplomatic relations. Resuming full diplomatic relations implies that not only do we deploy ambassadors in each other's country but that we bring our diplomatic strength up to full volume. The timing is a matter we will have to synchronise. It is important to choose the right people to do these jobs. They will be very skilled jobs, on both sides, involving the full range of the diplomatic repertoires open to the Libyans and to ourselves.

My Lords, the Minister will be aware that I have visited Libya twice in recent years. I therefore give a particular welcome to the Statement. The Minister will also be aware that one visit was in the company of Dr Jim Swire of the Lockerbie families' group. On one occasion we met with Colonel Gaddafi. The object of each visit was to try to move forward good relations between our two countries. The creation of the third country trial at The Hague provided the first step of that way forward. The announcement about compensation and the investigation into the case of WPC Fletcher is the second part of restoring good relations.

Perhaps I may ask the Minister to emphasise one point that she mentioned. It is perhaps not widely understood in this country that there are between 4,000 and 5,000 British people working in Libya—mainly in business, some in education—who are greatly relieved that diplomatic relations and transport links are to be restored. I wish the trade delegation all success. As I was to be a member of it before I took up my present responsibilities in Scotland, I hope that it will be successful, both politically and commercially.

My Lords, I am sure that we all hope that it will be a success, even without the wisdom of the noble Lord, Lord Steel, to see it on its way.

I am aware of the visits to which the noble Lord referred and of the dedicated way in which Dr Jim Swire and others of the Lockerbie families' group have conducted themselves over recent years. I, too, have met them. I was deeply impressed by the tenacity and wisdom with which they pursued what was a painful and difficult issue for them.

The noble Lord, Lord Steel, is quite right. He reminded us of the 4,000 or so British nationals who live in Libya. I hope that they will welcome the resumption of full diplomatic relations: I hope that their lives will be greatly eased, not only by the improving trade relations but also eventually—we hope it will be sooner rather than later—by the lifting of the UN sanctions. They will be able to enjoy also the full protection of the consular activity which will be afforded to them by the restored embassy.

My Lords, I welcome the resumption of diplomatic relations with Libya. In particular I welcome the opportunity it gives to continue the investigation into the murder of Yvonne Fletcher. I know that that will be welcomed by all police officers throughout the country, as much as it will by Queenie Fletcher and her husband, the mother and father of Yvonne Fletcher.

Can the Minister give an assurance that the investigation will be as thorough as it needs to be? She has mentioned that it will take the form of a commission rogatoire. The offence took place in 1984, some 15 years ago. It is absolutely essential after that amount of time that forensic examination of the suspects and the weapons takes place. Can the Minister assure the House that the weapons which may well have been in the embassy at that particular time have been preserved? Or will we find that the investigation will not be deep enough to provide the absolute proof of who killed Yvonne Fletcher?

The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, asked about the IRA and the support of the previous regime prior to 1985 for IRA terrorism. Many of the weapons which we believe, with good reason, came from Libya are still in the hands of the IRA today. Can the Minister assure the House that if those weapons come to light in terrorist incidents we will have the co-operation of the Libyan authorities to forensically examine them and establish their origin?

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Imbert, for his welcome for the announcement. I can assure the noble Lord, as my right honourable friend's Statement indicated, that we have maintained a very close relationship with the Metropolitan Police throughout the negotiations with the Libyan authorities.

The investigation will be as thorough as it can be. I remind the noble Lord of the quotation by my right honourable friend from the joint statement, which is in the Library, that Libya agrees,

"to participate in and co-operate with the continuing police investigation and to accept its outcome".

That last phrase, "and to accept its outcome", is a very important part of the undertaking.

I described to the House how the investigation would begin as a commission rogatoire. I hope that I also made it clear that that was not the end of the investigation. If the Metropolitan Police believe that their investigations need to proceed in different ways, I am sure they will make that clear.

We cannot anticipate the outcome of the investigation. I am sure that the police will be as thorough as they believe it necessary to be. The noble Lord, Lord Imbert, knows far more about these matters than I do. I am sure that the Metropolitan Police, who have a very close interest—a right and proper interest—in investigating this appalling murder, will want to pursue the matter as rigorously as possible. They will enjoy the support of Her Majesty's Government in doing so.

The noble Lord raises a rather different question about IRA weaponry that might or might not have come from Libya. I am afraid that I shall have to write to him on that rather specific question. I know that it is related to the matter under discussion, but I should like to give the noble Lord a specific answer to the point he raised.

My Lords, as one who has fairly often criticised successive governments, including the present one, for their conduct of our relations with Arab countries, I most warmly congratulate them on the achievement of these two agreements, these two ends to the quarrels. Perhaps I may ask one question which it may or may not be possible to answer. How much did the intervention of Mr Mandela help towards this fortunate solution?

My Lords, my noble friend describes himself as one who has often criticised the Government. I am delighted at the refreshing change on this occasion. I shall have to write to the noble Lord about Mr Mandela's interest in what has happened. We all know that Mr Mandela has had a close interest and has been extremely helpful in oiling the wheels of the relationships.

The two agreements that we have, over Lockerbie on the one hand, and over the murder of WPC Fletcher on the other, have, been negotiated directly between the British Government and the Libyan Government. There has not been any third party involved in those negotiations. If my noble friend's question is, "What facilitated the start of those negotiations?", I am bound to say to him that there has been some desire to move this matter forward for a very long time. I certainly do not discount the effect of the kind of visit that was detailed by the noble Lord, Lord Steel, and the way in which the families have conducted themselves. They have been extraordinarily patient and sensible. United Nations sanctions have also played their part in what has now been facilitated. A great number of people have lent a great deal of weight in trying to get us to where we are today. We thank them all warmly for the help they have given us. But I do not think it is help from any one source in one country that has enabled us to get to this point.

My Lords, the Minister has expressed the Government's thanks to the Italian Government for having effectively protected our interests in Libya over many years. Am I right in thinking that the Saudi Arabian Government also deserve some credit for having very effectively, and in quite difficult conditions, represented Libya over the many years during which we have had no diplomatic relations with Libya?

My Lords, I suspect that the noble Lord knows a great deal more about the history of this matter, given his former incarnation as Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign Office. He is entirely right in suggesting that our thanks are due to a number of different governments, including the Government of Saudi Arabia.

moved Amendment No. 347A:

Page 132, line 40, at end insert ("and the Chair of the London Assembly"").

I am happy with the amendment proposed by the Government in the other place. It was argued that our amendment was unnecessary because the accounts would be published and made available to the assembly on request. The step that the Government are taking is a very helpful one. I shall not move Amendment No. 347B.

moved Amendment No. 348:

After Clause 242, insert the following new clause—

The new clause obliges the assembly to debate the LDA's report and accounts each year. The assembly has a duty, under Clause 49, to keep under review the exercise by the mayor of the statutory functions exercisable by him or her. Given the powers of appointment and direction which the mayor has over the LDA, its activities will fall within the compass of the assembly's duty under Clause 49. Accordingly, the assembly will be able to hold regular debates concerning the LDA, whether on its general performance or on particular matters and will no doubt do so. Adding particular obligations to the assembly's general duties could serve only to cloud its responsibilities. For that reason, I hope the noble Lord will not press his amendment.

I listened with interest to what the noble Baroness said. Keeping under review is keeping under review and it may well be that the assembly will debate the deeds and, rarely we hope, the misdeeds of the London Development Agency from time to time.

However, the amendment specifically relates to the annual report. That report is more significant than just keeping a subject under review. It is for that reason that we proposed the amendment. Nevertheless, I have heard what the noble Baroness said and will study it. I do not believe it will satisfy me, but I will decide what to do in the light of what she said and what I think. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 349:

Page 274, leave out lines 14 and 15 and insert—

(""(4) This section does not apply in relation to London where the London Development Agency shall have regard to the views of and regularly consult with small, medium and large businesses in London and with their representative bodies."").

This amendment continues the debate we were having before the Statement about the rather complex network of consultations. As I read the provision in the schedule—the two lines which the noble Lord seeks to omit—it proposes that Section 8 of the Regional Development Agencies Act is not to apply to the London Development Agency. The section deals with consultation and subsection (3) deals with the position where there is no regional chamber. It provides for guidance for carrying out appropriate consultation in relation to the exercise of its functions. That is omitted and, for once, it seems to me to be quite a safeguard. People who might not be at the right place in the cobweb would be caught—

If the noble Baroness would allow me to intervene, I accept that the amendment takes out lines, but it also inserts them. Perhaps she is looking at the lines taken out, but not those inserted.

No, I was using the noble Lord's amendment as a hook to hang the argument on. If I had reached the end of the sentence, the noble Lord would know that I supported him.

The Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 empowers the Secretary of State to designate a suitable body in a region to be a regional chamber. He can then require the relevant RDA to have regard to its views on the formulation and review of strategy and to consult it on the exercise of other specified functions. Schedule 20 removes this provision for London. Business representation on the LDA board and requirements for wider consultation on the LDA strategy have an equivalent effect with respect to the functions of the LDA.

Businesses, large and small, will benefit from the targeted approach of the LDA. Given the importance of small businesses to London's economy, I fully expect the LDA to consult them on the strategy and also expect the mayor to insist on it. They must be consulted if their interests are to be affected and that is provided for.

In addition, the scrutiny powers of the assembly provide a key channel for local views to be fed to the LDA and Clause 25 requires the GLA to consult businesses and others on, the exercise of its functions which have an impact on the interests of those businesses. The results of the consultations will no doubt, where relevant, be fed to the LDA board. The Committee has already considered and approved those measures.

The amendment would place small, medium and large businesses, together with their representative bodies, in the role of a regional chamber. This is not necessary to ensure that business views are taken into account by the LDA; it has already been provided for. It would also be undesirable to give businesses in London a role which is given elsewhere to a body representative of all those who have an interest in the agency's work. Therefore, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

I am becoming accustomed to being urged by the noble Baroness to withdraw my amendment. She does it with such superb eloquence that it is an irresistible temptation. I am grateful to her for her reply which I will study with care. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 349A:

Page 274, line 22, leave out ("In").

moved Amendments Nos. 349B and 349C:

Page 274, line 22, at end insert ("shall be amended as follows.

(2) At the beginning there shall be inserted "(1)".

(3) In the subsection (1) so formed,").

Page 274, line 24, at end insert—

("(4) After the subsection (1) so formed there shall be inserted—

"(2) The Secretary of State may, with the approval of the Treasury, make to the Greater London Authority grants of such amounts, and on such terms, as he thinks fit.

(3) Any grant made under subsection (2) shall be made for the purposes of the London Development Agency."").

moved Amendment No. 349D:

Page 274, line 25, leave out paragraph 6.

The noble Baroness may have been right to ask the question, but I am not sure that I follow her arithmetic sufficiently to provide an answer. We do not wish to see this clause modified. We decided to remove the LDA from the controls related to the other agencies in the RDA Act because of the special circumstances of the LDA, which effectively operates within a local government structure. If the noble Baroness asks whether the reason for it is that we are providing the borrowing structure for the GLA as a whole, the answer in general terms is yes. The borrowing controls relate to the GLA and the functional bodies within the local government financial regime, not the system of borrowing controls designed for non-departmental public bodies.

I shall read the remarks of the noble Baroness related to the arithmetic and see whether I can provide clarification. I did not recognise her final figure. Perhaps she will allow me to reply to that part of her observations in writing and, on that basis, withdraw the amendment.

To avoid any confusion, I referred to paragraph 6(2) of Schedule 20, which in the Regional Development Agencies Act substitutes a collective borrowing limit of £177.77 million in place of £200 million for all the development agencies. I asked whether £200 million, minus £177.77 million, was the amount that we could be assured the Secretary of State has in mind for the LDA, perhaps not as the borrowing limit given its particular structure, but for the work of that agency. I hope that that makes the point clear. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 349E:

Page 275, leave out lines 19 to 21 and insert—

(""(4) Subsection (1) has effect in relation to the London Development Agency as if the reference to the Secretary of State was a reference to the Mayor of London and the London Assembly.

(4A) Subsection (2) has effect in relation to the London Development Agency as if the reference to the Secretary of State was a reference to the Mayor of London.").

My Amendment No. 350 is coupled with Amendment No. 349E. The specific aim of our amendment is to achieve openness so that everybody can understand the way in which the London Development Agency works. The amendment provides that,

"The report shall include the criteria used by the London Development Agency for granting financial support to other institutions".

The LDA will have considerable financial power and influence, and it is important that the public at large understand and have confidence in the management systems which the agency uses, particularly when it handles sums of public money and makes them available to institutions or individuals. The amendment requires that the criteria used are open. I believe that if that was stated on the face of the Bill, it would represent a considerable improvement.

The first of these amendments is unnecessary and the second is inappropriate. Amendment No. 349E is unnecessary because it is already provided for in the new subsection (6) which has been added to Section 17 of the RDA Act by virtue of paragraph 11 of Schedule 20 to the Bill. Obviously, the noble Baroness should have known that, but there we are.

As to Amendment No. 350, it would oblige the LDA and the mayor to include in the LDA's annual report notice of the criteria to be used for the grant of financial support. There are two issues here: clarity for the benefit of potential recipients and propriety. The LDA will, in the main, be dispensing money for the achievement of functions delegated by Ministers. There will normally be criteria in the public domain for each of these, at least in broad terms. The single regeneration budget is a good example. Here we have national criteria that are widely known. At present, the Government Office for London, subsequently the authority, publishes its more specific guidelines which tailor the national guidelines to the specific circumstances of London. No doubt the LDA will wish to do likewise.

The LDA will have a chief finance officer and monitoring officer following local authority practice in this instance. Its accounts will be audited annually, which is a check on the use of defensible criteria for dispensing funds. But the amendment will not help either objective. The annual report is not the appropriate vehicle either for detailed bidding advice as to criteria against which bids can be set or audit information. In any case, bidding guidance needs to be issued when bids are being sought and should not wait for the annual report. Therefore, in the terms it was put I do not believe that this amendment is appropriate, and I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw it.

I welcome the noble Lord the Minister back on to his perch. I assure him that he has been adequately substituted for in his absence. I shall not say that he has not been missed; it is nice to see him back again.

I heard what the noble Lord had to say, and I shall study it with care.

I am glad to be assured that my amendment is unnecessary. I realise that the Official Report will not record that when the Minister told me that I should of course have realised that paragraph 11 applied, he did so as a humorous comment. I say that now to protect my good name. I thank the noble Lord for pointing that out, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 351:

Page 276, line 1, leave out paragraph 14.

As the noble Lord says, the amendment raises an interesting issue. Nevertheless, on balance the argument is against the noble Lord. It is true that the RDA Act allows the Secretary of State to alter the boundaries of Me RDA areas in the rest of England, but it would not make much sense in relation to London, where the LDA is responsible to the mayor. Indeed, if the amendment were accepted, it is at least notionally possible that the mayor of London would extend his power, at least in the economic area, over the whole of Essex. I am not sure that that would be desired by the noble Lord's former constituents in the county of Essex.

Although it is true that some flexibility is necessary, that can best be achieved by co-operation between the RDAs, as we spelt out in some detail during the passage of the RDA Act. Clearly, the mayor and the LDA will have responsibility for acting, for example, on the Thames gateway with the east and south-eastern RDAs, and it is very important that they do so. If one were to extend the power of a body controlled by the mayor to territories outside his own territory, I believe there would be serious political repercussions. I hope, therefore, that on balance the noble Lord will see the wisdom of not pressing his amendment, and I ask him to seek leave to withdraw it.

I am grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for his reply. I accept that I was somewhat extreme in the way in which I expressed the case for the amendment. None the less, I am reassured by what the noble Lord said about the need for co-operation between regional development agencies across their boundaries, particularly in the south-east of England. That is essential.

I shall study what the noble Lord said. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Before calling Amendment No. 353A, I have to inform the Committee that if the amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 354:

moved Amendment No. 353A:

Page 277, line 20, leave out sub-paragraph (6) and insert—

("(6) In paragraph 4 (staff) after sub-paragraph (2) there shall be inserted—

"(2A) Appointments to the position of Chief Executive of the London Development Agency shall be made as follows—

(a) the first appointment shall be made by the Mayor of London after consultation with the chair (or chair designate) of the agency and with the approval of the London Assembly decided by simple majority vote,

(b) subsequent appointments shall be made by the Agency with the consent of the Mayor of London and the approval of the London Assembly decided by simple majority vote."").

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has indicated that the amendment relates to previous discussions of the division of powers, and, although it is correct that the assembly will have a role in relation to its staff and the authority's staff, the LDA is the executive arm of the mayor in the economic and regeneration field. We believe that it should be the mayor who makes the appointments and takes the decisions in relation to the LDA, as we have discussed more generally. It is the role of the assembly to hold the mayor to account for his exercise of his executive functions.

The principle that functional bodies are the arm of the mayor is one that we have consistently pursued. I know that the Liberal Democrats, by and large, disagree, but for logic's sake I must ask the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, to withdraw his amendment.

I thank the Minister for that not unexpected reply. I certainly could not accuse him of inconsistency. We obviously have a difference of view about the role of the assembly in such circumstances and I suspect that it will be irreconcilable during the passage of the Bill. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 354ZA:

Page 133, line 11, leave out from beginning to end of line 3 on page 134.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, whose name so resembles mine that I occasionally receive his post, for explaining why he has moved separately from the other grouped amendments an amendment which he described rightly, if I may say so, as a rather crude amendment. In fact, if the amendment were passed it would leave us with a Metropolitan Police district and some form of unspecified Metropolitan Police Authority. We shall debate those details later on and so I shall leave any comments I have on those details until the proper time when we deal with those amendments.

The noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, said that it was for the Minister to give the Government's reasons for why there is to be this historic change and why we are to revert to the situation that applied more than 170 years ago. I suspect that London has changed a little in 170 years. I happy to let the Minister do that. However, I want to place on record the strong support of the Liberal Democrats for the setting up of a Metropolitan Police Authority and for the authority no longer to be the Home Secretary. We shall come to the details in a few moments.

Why should it not be the Home Secretary? Why do this? It should be done not only because we have supported it for years and the Labour Party—now the Government—have supported it for years, but the most important reason of all in many ways is that for many years and publicly the Metropolitan Police, and particularly its commissioner, have been advocating such a change. With such powerful forces in support of it, it must be a good Idea.

Why is it a good idea? First, the Home Secretary has a huge range of duties and powers. The amount of attention that that one Minister, however able, can give to the affairs of the largest police force in the country must be very limited. Whatever good advice he or she may receive, it is still very limited. The degree of accountability, therefore, for the Metropolitan Police service is perhaps limited to the annual debate in the other place, annual or twice yearly meetings with the representatives of the London boroughs and, more recently, the meetings of the Metropolitan Police Committee. All of us are agreed that that is inadequate. For that reason alone, it is important that we are to have a body of people—a police authority—that is able to give more time, detailed knowledge and attention to the strategic work of the Metropolitan Police.

However, I think it goes beyond that in that it also brings about certainly the possibility—and I very much hope the reality—of a greater degree of community accountability within London for the Metropolitan Police, its strategic priorities and so on. That in itself must be desirable. How the members of the authority will work and how they will relate to London's communities is perhaps a debate for later today.

The other aspect of the matter that is less often mentioned is the whole financial regime of the Metropolitan Police with which I have occasionally had some dealings in my role as a London borough council leader. The Met has made strenuous efforts in recent years to try to bring its financial regime a little more up to date than it was. However, had it been similar to a London borough council in financial accounting and accountability terms, these moves would have happened a long time ago. The Met has a huge budget. Were it to be receiving rather greater public scrutiny than is now the case, I am sure that greater and less damaging savings would have been found than has had to be the case in order to meet the other restrictions that have been placed upon it.

We on these Benches very much welcome the historic change that is taking place. I acknowledge that it is a historic change. It is long overdue. It is time that the metropolis, like everywhere else in the country, had its own police authority which is not the Home Secretary but is more directly related to and accountable to Londoners.

This amendment would remove the police authority's status as a body corporate; it would remove any enabling provision for it to have any members; and it would remove any provision for it to have any name. But apart from that, the short reasons are these: first, it is inappropriate for a single political Minister, however distinguished, to be in charge of such a large authority; secondly, it will improve accountability; thirdly, it will improve openness; and, fourthly—I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tope—it will enable local involvement in a way which is exactly parallel, for instance, with the thinking behind the Crime and Disorder Act and is long overdue. Furthermore, it is Liberal Democrat policy; it is also Conservative policy; and—the clincher—it is government policy.

I am grateful for that legal advice on the drafting of the amendment. It is much appreciated. The debate has enabled us to hear at least some of the reasons that lie behind this historic change. In view of the legal consequences of the amendment, I beg leave to withdraw it.

moved Amendment No. 354A:

Page 277, line 31, leave out ("twelve") and insert ("six").

Perhaps I may preface my remarks by saying for the benefit of anyone in the Chamber who may not be aware of the fact that I am, and have been for the past 13 years, a London borough council leader and may therefore be thought to have some natural sympathy for this group of amendments. I do not. I understand that the amendments arise from the Conservative approach, which is that the assembly should comprise entirely London borough council representatives. That is a view we have debated previously. It is one that I do not share. For that reason, I cannot share this view.

The Greater London Authority and the Metropolitan Police Authority are supposed to be strategic in their roles. Therefore, it is right and appropriate that the democratic representatives should come from the strategic authority and the assembly rather than the London boroughs. I fear that were six, or some such small number, to come from the London boroughs, inevitably that would detract from the strategic role and transfer some of the emphasis to a more local role. That is the wrong emphasis.

The noble Lord, Lord Cope, makes an important point in relation to the crime and disorder strategies. It is important that those are fed clearly through to the deliberations of the Metropolitan Police Authority. But the implementation and development: of each London borough's strategies are primarily matters for that borough, and the partnerships and consultation within that borough. Where and how that should feed into the police authority is another matter. It will be for the authority to develop effective consultation arrangements with the boroughs collectively—dare I say perhaps through the Association of London Government?—to consider matters of wider concern and interest on the implementation of the crime and disorder strategies.

These proposals will not stop that happening. It is for those involved to ensure that it takes place. To have only six London borough representatives on the authority may be useful for the six London boroughs or the City of London (if there happens to be a representative). But, speaking for the London borough of Sutton, although we have good relationships with the next-door borough of Croydon, having a councillor from Croydon on the Metropolitan Police Authority would be of little greater use to us than having our constituency Member on the authority. It is of limited value. As a London borough council leader, I have some sympathy with the amendment, but essentially it is misguided. Subject to the amendments we shall propose later, the authority is about the right structure. It is for the authority to ensure that it establishes good and effective liaison arrangements with the boroughs, in particular in relation to their crime and disorder strategies.

I share with the noble Lord, Lord Tope, a feeling that there is a superficial attraction to the amendment. However, I agree that it does not bear much examination.

Members of the London assembly are being elected for strategic purposes. The role of the authority will be focused on strategic issues in relation to policing London. It will not be concerned on a day-to-day basis with operational matters or with issues around the crime and disorder strategy which will be developed at a local level. Indeed, it would be wrong if that were the case. Therefore, the argument that borough representation is required is fallacious.

It is also fallacious in practical terms, for the reasons to which the noble Lord alluded. To have six representatives of the boroughs purportedly representing 32 London boroughs makes difficulties for each representative who will be a locally elected borough councillor but will have to represent the interests of, presumably, five or six borough councils. In practice, that will not work. It will do nothing as regards the accountability structures of the police authority. If one wants good accountability and good links with the boroughs, no doubt an amendment can be tabled suggesting 32 representatives. I do not believe that that would then be a practical police authority. It would not necessarily serve the purposes set out in the amendment. Those purposes will be achieved by much closer collaboration between the police authority, the London boroughs and the local crime and disorder partnerships.

The consequences have already been accurately set out by my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey and the noble Lord, Lord Tope. I do not retraverse that ground. Essentially, we have sought to draw a clear line between strategic issues for which the GLA should be responsible and other issues which are rightly kept by the boroughs.

As the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said, the policing of London clearly requires a strategic overview. Therefore, the elected membership should be drawn from the assembly and not from individual boroughs. However, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, has raised an important point and I am happy to reiterate, as firmly as I can, that the needs of local communities in London will not be overlooked. Consultation with the community is a requirement of the Police Act 1996 and of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.

I am sure that the MPA will work closely with the boroughs, just as the Metropolitan Police Committee does now. It will take account of the views of the boroughs when drawing up its annual policing plan. I stress that the MPA and the boroughs will be involved in the new statutory partnerships under the Crime and Disorder Act. Therefore, although I recognise the concerns that have driven these amendments, I believe that they are best addressed through the mechanisms that I have described.

I am slightly disappointed, but only mildly, to discover that the two senior representatives of local government—particularly of local London boroughs—present in the Chamber this evening have not leapt to their feet to support the amendment. Nevertheless, I am not entirely put off by that.

The Crime and Disorder Act provides for the involvement of London boroughs, among others, and the Police Act provides for the involvement of what are called "relevant councils". So there is a case to be made for such involvement. The local strategies of which we talk will need to add up to the total, overall strategy—the same word is used in both cases—of the Metropolitan Police Authority and the Metropolitan Police force. It would be no good if that did not happen.

I realise that the London Borough of Sutton or any other individual borough would not have its Own councillors on the authority, even if the figure of six that I have suggested were enlarged somewhat—I certainly do not think that it should be enlarged to 32 or anything like that because it would make the authority much less workable. It is proposed that 12 representatives of the assembly should serve on the police authority, so it is likely that some boroughs will not be represented on that body. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, may find that, if the amendment were carried, the position would be the same.

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I make it clear that I do not wish my borough, or any other, to be represented specifically on the Metropolitan Police Authority. My point is that the MPA should be a strategic authority that deals with strategic issues. Of necessity, the assembly members who serve on that body will live somewhere. However, I would not wish them to be viewed as borough representatives in any sense. Some of them may be constituency members of the assembly—I hope that is the correct term—and others may be London members from the top-up list. The important point is that they should be strategic representatives, not borough representatives.

I accept that. I understood entirely the thrust of the noble Lord's earlier intervention. At the same time, the point of having elected representatives—whether they are from the assembly or from the boroughs—is that they should represent, to a degree, the people who elected them; otherwise there is no democracy at all.

Judging from what the Minister has said, I am not likely to make much progress with the amendment this evening. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw it.

moved Amendment No. 354ZB:

Page 277, line 32, leave out ("appointed") and insert ("elected").

I shall speak primarily to Amendments Nos. 354F, 354H and 354J, the effect of which is broadly the same as that of the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Tope. The noble Lord's amendments use the word "elected" rather than "appointed", but that is not an effective difference.

I believe it is sensible that assembly members who sit on the authority—whether it is six or 12—should be elected by the assembly rather than appointed by the mayor. I cannot say that I followed with proper attention all of the previous debates about the mayor and the assembly—although I have done my best to read the relevant parts of Hansard. As far as the police authority is concerned, I believe that it is important that assembly members who serve on it should represent the assembly not only in the sense that the party balance is reflected—that is provided for in the Bill, and we wish to continue it as far as possible—but in the sense that they feel that they are answerable to the assembly.

The basic purpose of the assembly is to be a democratic check on the mayor. If he is to be given such patronage, that check is weakened. If he is able to say to a member of the assembly who is put on to the police authority that he is not doing what he wants and that he will remove him from the assembly, the mayor will directly control and heavily influence the authority.

We must remember that the 12 members are a majority. The independent members will be appointed by the 12, so whatever they and the magistrates say, they can be overruled. That will influence the way in which the authority works. It is therefore important that the assembly members have the protection of being elected by their fellows rather than being the beneficiaries of the mayor's patronage.

If it is convenient to the Committee, I shall speak to all the amendments in the group.

The effect of Amendment No. 354F, the Conservative amendment, is to have the assembly members of the MPA appointed by the assembly rather than the mayor. The Liberal Democrat Amendment No. 354ZF is similar, except for the difference in terminology. The other amendments are consequential.

It comes down to a difference of approach, as identified by the noble Lord, Lord Tope. We return to the old argument about the extension of the powers of the assembly at the expense of the mayor. I am not sure how helpful it would be if I wearied the Committee with a rerun of arguments which have been well ventilated, albeit in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, and myself.

We believed that the amendments downplay the purpose of the mayor's strong strategic role. We regard the power of appointment as critical to the mayor's ability to take a high level and strategic interest in the authority's efforts to tackle crime and maintain an efficient and effective policing service in London. We do not want to see any diminution of the mayor's power in that respect.

Fundamentally, the difference of approach is as simple as that, but it is important not to overlook the fact that the mayor' s power of appointment is subject to the requirement that he or she shall ensure so far as practicable that the appointments reflect the balance of parties on the assembly. We believe that those two aspects taken together arrive at the right, properly balanced conclusion.

Perhaps I may begin with a point of agreement as regards election or appointment. I entirely accept that the assembly would be appointing the 12 members. It might well be that the 12 appointees would be chosen by elections within the assembly. In that way, we can agree on both election and appointment.

I turn to the more important and substantial matter. I was disappointed with the Minister's reply not because I expected him to agree with me, but because he had not understood and perhaps I had not made my point clearly. The argument is not about the powers of the strategic role of the mayor. If the Government were proposing that the mayor could appoint any 12 members from anywhere, some of whom might happen to be assembly members, I might well be having the argument that we have had throughout; that the assembly and not the mayor should appoint those 12 people.

We are not discussing that. We are specifically discussing 12 members of the assembly, as the Bill provides. Therefore, we are discussing whether the assembly can chose its own members who are bound to be seen as its representatives. Indeed, I assume that they are to be there as representatives of the assembly and through it of the London communities. We are discussing whether the assembly has the right to chose its 12 representatives or whether the assembly has imposed upon it whoever the mayor chooses—the mayor's 12 most favoured members of the assembly—subject to the political balance.

That is a different point from the one we repeated about the role of the mayor and the assembly. I am talking specifically about who appoints the 12 people from the assembly. We say that it ought to be the assembly, from which they come and to which they will inevitably be held accountable, rather than the mayor, who will impose them. Many of those 12 unfortunate people who may well have been chosen by the assembly, given that we are talking about almost half the membership, will be held to account by their fellow assembly members who will have had no choice in their appointment. That seems rather unfair to those 12 people, to say the least.

I hope that the Minister will recognise that that is a different point from the one to which he has replied. I am happy to pause in order to give him an opportunity to reply to it. I see that he does not wish to do so. I suspect that I may have won my argument and that we may well return to the matter later when he 'will have had chance to think of a counter argument or have been persuaded by ours. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 354G:

Page 278, leave out lines 1 to 3.

I too shall listen with considerable interest to the Minister's response to the very good points that have been made. I am not quite clear why the Government believe that in giving the mayor the power to appoint 12 assembly persons they must insist that one of them has to be the deputy mayor. I do not entirely understand why that is so. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley. Should the Minister be so moved by my persuasive arguments that the assembly member should be appointed by that body, it might well be a reasonable compromise that the deputy mayor shall be a member and the other 11 shall be chosen by the assembly. That would appear to be a reasonable way forward. But given that the mayor is appointing all 12, why is it required, whether he likes it or not, that one of them has to be the deputy mayor?

Amendment No. 354G would remove the requirement that the deputy mayor be one of the assembly members on the MPA. The answer to the question raised by both noble Lords who have contributed to the debate is that the deputy mayor is intended to be a figure of considerable importance. He is a key player in the assembly and an important participant in the mayor's cabinet. We believe that if the deputy was not on the MPA, that would significantly weaken the relationship between the mayor and the MPA and would diminish the mayor's influence. We do not want that to happen. That is the simple answer to the question which was very courteously put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Tope.

I thought the Minister was going to reply in that way, but his argument can be turned upside down. If the mayor already has "his man" or "his person" on the police authority, why does he need to have 11 other people whom he has also appointed? He has his representative in place already and that would be enough.

I agree with that. The Minister said that the deputy mayor is to be a key player in the assembly and I understand that. He may be a key member in different ways. It may be that his skills and experience show that he is the appropriate person to put on the police authority. But he may be a key member in other respects. There may be another key member in the assembly who is more appropriate to be the mayor's principal link with the police authority, the strategy and the planning. It does not seem to me that a case has been made out for having the deputy mayor automatically elected.

I understand that the mayor will want to have a good relationship with the police authority. If the mayor is able to appoint 12 people, he will have a good relationship with the authority. If not, it will be the mayor's fault if he does not have a good relationship. I do not believe that it would be weakened if for some of the time the deputy mayor was put on the police authority. Does the Minister want to intervene?

I am very grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Can he really envisage circumstances in which someone as significant as the deputy mayor, a member of the assembly, would not be properly on the police authority? Inevitably, that person would be the link, if nothing else, between the assembly and the police body. Can the noble Lord envisage circumstances in which such an important person would not be on the body? If he can, perhaps he can tell the Committee what those circumstances might be.

I shall give the noble Lord a little more time to think of those circumstances. It may very well be that, given that nearly half the members of the assembly will be on the police authority, one of them will be the deputy mayor. I do not understand why it must be the deputy mayor. As the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, has already said, there may be other very important responsibilities which the deputy mayor undertakes as regards the various other functional bodies. Why does it have to be the police authority'? Why cannot it be another important member of the assembly who fulfils the role? That is the point that we are trying to make. It is not that the deputy mayor is not important or that appointment to the police authority is not important; but why does it have to be prescribed that one of the 12 has to be the deputy mayor? If he is much better informed, suited and experienced in another important aspect of the GLA's work, why should not the deputy mayor play an equally important role in the area for which he or she is better qualified? That is the point that we are trying to make. I hope that by now the noble Lord, Lord Cope, has thought of many possibilities that may arise.

The noble Lord, Lord Tope, has expressed the matter more eloquently than I; I seem to have failed to put over my point. The situation where the deputy mayor may not be on the police authority may arise in two different ways. First, the mayor may consider that it would be more appropriate for the deputy mayor to spend most of his time working on some of the other responsibilities. In that case, it may be better for the deputy mayor not to be on the police authority so that he can devote his time to the other responsibilities that the mayor wishes him to have.

Secondly, it may well be that another member of the assembly should be the principal man or woman on the police authority because of his or her past experience, training or qualities. Therefore, it may be unnecessary to appoint the deputy mayor because someone else can fill the role of being the important principal link between the mayor and the police authority. I do not know whether the Minister wants to contribute further to the debate. I gather not. In that case, no doubt the debate will continue on another occasion. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 354L:

Page 278, line 16, at end insert—

("3A. The members of the Metropolitan Police Authority shall exercise their powers to appoint members under paragraph 3(3)(a) so as to ensure that, so far as is practicable, where members for whose appointments they are responsible are members of political parties their numbers reflect the balance of parties for the time being prevailing among members of the London Assembly.").

Before the Minister replies, I am bound to say that I find these two amendments quite disturbing. I have a small acquaintance with the police authority in the county where I was a county councillor. To return to our old argument, when that police authority was set up it was universally agreed that one of the county councillors representing us should be the former chairman of the police authority, who was immensely knowledgeable. When the county council took the decision to appoint him as a member, his party affiliation was totally unimportant. Subsequently, he chaired that police authority with great distinction.

Turning to the independent members and the members chosen by the magistrates, I am quite astounded to hear the noble Lord say that their political affiliation should have any consideration. The Secretary of State will nominate a panel from which, if I understand the Bill aright, the other members will appoint the independent members. The Secretary of State, in creating that panel, will conduct a great deal of careful research. Quite a complicated form has to be filled in for that purpose. The Secretary of State, or someone on his behalf, will have satisfied himself that the person appointed, whether or not he or she has a political affiliation, is capable of acting with independence on the police authority.

I know a lot of magistrates and sometimes I can guess what their political affiliations may be. One or two of them occasionally confess into my ear what that affiliation is, but I have never heard them behave as though they belonged to a political party on, for example, the probation committee, of which I am a member. I am sure that the tradition of magistracy—I hope that it is as strong in London as elsewhere—would not favour a party political approach on behalf of magistrates. I would rather leave such matters to good sense and the general assumption that there are some people on bodies who can behave in a non-party political manner so that they make sure that we have the right people serving on the Metropolitan Police Authority.

No magistrate has ever confessed to me the shame of being a Liberal Democrat!

I do not know why the Minister suggests that it is only those in sympathy with my particular orientation whose affiliation I have occasionally been able to adduce!

The points made by the noble Baroness are overwhelming. The function of the independent members and the magistrate members, as she says, is precisely to be independent, bringing qualities and skills which are not dependent upon and are not generated by membership of a political party. It will be difficult enough to obtain the correct balance of skills, age, ethnic background and gender without introducing politics into the equation.

Outside London, independent member appointments are not dependent upon political allegiance or political parties. If one went the way that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, indicates, the result may be a membership, as indicated by the noble Baroness, consisting mainly of politically minded people. We do not want that for a body of this sensitivity.

I have expressed my view on this subject, but it has not found favour. I seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 354MVA:

Page 135, leave out lines 3 to 19 and insert—

("(2) Any appointment of a Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis shall be made by the Metropolitan Police Authority.

(3) A person appointed as Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis shall hold office until such time as the Assembly shall decide otherwise by two thirds majority on receiving a request from the Metropolitan Police Authority.

(4) Any appointment of a Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis shall be subject to regulations under section 50.").