My Lords, before business begins, I take the opportunity to inform the House that I am to deliver a valedictory address at the Royal Courts of Justice for Sir Stephen Brown, the retiring President of the Family Division of the High Court, on Friday 30th July when the House will sit. Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords—

Hear, hear!

My Lords, in 1999–2000 the average increase in police authority budgets in England will be 3 per cent. At the end of March 1999, the latest date for which we have figures, there were 119,450 police officers in England.

My Lords, I congratulate my noble and learned friend and thank him for that information. Will he comment on the recent criticism of the Government in some areas, as in South Yorkshire, where they are being blamed for a modest reduction in the number of police officers this year? Would it not be appropriate for my noble and learned friend to remind the police service that, where budgetary resources have been increased above the rate of inflation, as they have this year, it would be appropriate for the forces to accept that they bear responsibility for the use of the resources in making proper operational arrangements? Does he agree that they need to defend their priorities rather than sit back and allow the Government to be blamed?

My Lords, the noble Lord is right. The budget in South Yorkshire, to which he specifically referred, for the coming year is £173.3 million, which is an increase of £5.8 million. I must remind your Lordships that all the operational decisions are entirely within the gift of the local chief constable as a result of the 1994 legislation, which was deliberately passed to bring that into effect.

My Lords, when the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police addressed the All-Party Group on London a few days ago, he complained that he was 2,000 men short on the beat and that since the Lawrence report street crime had increased by some 35 per cent.

May I ask the noble and learned Lord—and I, too, offer my congratulations—what response the Government have given to the commissioner?

My Lords, the response we have given to police forces generally is substantially to increase the revenue spending in the coming year. In England and Wales, there will be a spending of £7.4 billion. The Home Secretary has discussed with the commissioner what appear to many to be high levels of sickness, possibly unjustifiable. Every police force under the command of every chief constable has a duty to provide efficiencies and we have no doubt that the means are there for them to do so.

My Lords, will the Minister encourage the Government to do something about rural crime, in particular juvenile drinking in pubs and public places, which seems to be increasing? Will he look at North Yorkshire in particular, where the police say that they are below strength?

My Lords, part of the answer lies with the powers of local authorities to introduce bylaws in specific areas where these matters are a problem. They are matters for local operational decisions either by the chief constable or decisions made locally and politically by local authorities.

My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that it is not the total police numbers which is important but the number of uniformed officers employed on visible patrol which reassures members of the public? Does he also agree that additional expenditure on matters such as technology and additional civilian support can often assist in freeing up the time of police and personnel for essential patrol duties?

My Lords, the noble Lord is right that people feel reassured by seeing officers on the beat, and that can be brought about by the efficient use of resources, which include modern technology and civilianisation.

My Lords, is the Attorney-General aware that my noble friend Lord Geraint attributed his promotion to the fact that he comes from a good Cardiganshire family, like his predecessor? However, before leaving Home Office matters, will he note that increasingly warm sentiments are being expressed by the Home Office about the use of private security firms? Does he agree that it would be dangerous to go down the road of two-tier policing: one for the general public and one for those who can afford extra policing? That is a dangerous road and I should be interested in the Minister's opinion of the use of private security firms for policing duties.

My Lords, private security firms, if properly regulated—I stress that—have their place in public order generally. I entirely agree with the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord. It is a fundamental duty of any government to provide adequate policing at public expense.

My Lords, will the Minister enlarge on his previous answer and say specifically what budgetary increase there will be for the Metropolitan Police?

My Lords, I cannot state the increase for the Metropolitan Police. However, I can say generally that there is an extra £1.24 billion in additional government funding over the next three years, and a further £400 million for crime reduction, including £150 million for closed circuit television. Those are quite remarkable figures, substantially in excess of what would have been available had not the Lord favoured us at the last election.

My Lords, I have heard the result of the last election attributed to various factors but that is interesting! Due to the wonders of modern communication, I had the opportunity last night, in his absence, of congratulating the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, on being appointed the first Attorney-General in your Lordships' House for 400 years. We wish him well in his new appointment and hope that he will still be available to respond on behalf of the Government, at least on some matters. We offer our congratulations to the new Minister in the Home Office.

Was not the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, right in the emphasis he placed on the relatively junior ranks in the police, so far as public perception is concerned? Can the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General tell us how many constables he expects there to be in the Metropolitan Police in the coming year? Given the high level of retirements, it looks as though there will be a severe reduction.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, for his generous tribute. I shall be available to answer on behalf of the Government, the only difference being that the answers will be much longer and more expensive.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

No, my Lords.

My Lords, I can understand the noble Lord being a little impatient with my constant application to this Question. Perhaps I may ask for his forbearance as opportunities to ask it are diminishing daily.

Does the noble Lord not agree that whether or not taxes are harmonised, pension costs are an integral part of any consideration of the ratio of debt to GDP, and therefore are relevant to convergence between EU countries and ourselves? Can the noble Lord clarify the Government's understanding of these established facts in the light of the description of them by his right honourable friend the Prime Minister in a recent "Question Time" debate as "myths"? Does that not contradict the headline which appeared in The Times which stated,

"Europe's pensions time bomb would send our taxes sky-high"?

My Lords, my Answer was "no", for two reasons: first, we do not accept the projection of pension costs in the noble Earl's Question. The most recent comparable data from the European Commission puts general government expenditure on pensions at 12.9 per cent of GDP in Italy, 11.3 per cent in Germany and 10.6 per cent in France. It is highly unlikely that it would increase to 16 per cent by next year.

My second reason for saying "no" is that even if there is such an increase in pension costs in other countries at some time in the future, they could not apply to this country. When the Prime Minister said it was a "myth", he stated—I quote from the transcript of the television programme:

"This idea of the pension fund, this is just part of the myth. There is absolutely no requirement whatever for us to bail out other countries' pension funds".

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the treaty is quite clear; there is no bail-out provision? However, in addition to the costs referred to by the noble Earl in his Question, there are also the pension funding deficits. In Germany and France, they are running in excess of 100 per cent of GDP and in Italy at something like 70 per cent against 10 per cent in the UK. Those figures cannot be ignored. Somebody will have to meet the bill at some time.

My Lords, I have given the most recent figures for government expenditure on pensions in the three countries referred to in the Question. Of course the noble Lord is right; at some stage somebody will have to pay for this. All the three countries concerned are urgently making reforms to their own pension arrangements. This country will still not be affected because of Article 104 of the EU Treaty.

My Lords, with reference to the second part of the noble Earl's Question, perhaps the Minister will forgive a brief promotional soundbite. I commend to the noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, the report, published yesterday, of your Lordships' Select Committee on the European Communities, on taxes in the European Union. Does my noble friend agree that, as noted in that report, co-ordination, where justified, rather than harmonisation, is how the Commission now more accurately describes its tax policy? When the Paymaster General gave evidence to our committee, she stated:

"tax harmonisation is not on the agenda … in the European Union".

My Lords, I have not had an opportunity to read the report of the committee chaired by my noble friend. That is a pleasure I shall reserve for the holidays. I can certainly confirm that the Paymaster General was right. The tax harmonisation implications of the noble Earl's Question are simply not true.

My Lords, is the Minister familiar with the great lawyer's dictum, "Never trust a man who says, 'trust me"? On the issue of pensions and tax harmonisation, is that not exactly what the Minister is asking the House to do? Is not the standard lawyer's response the right one? Of course, we trust the noble Lord: we know him to be an honourable and reliable man. It is his heirs and successors whom we doubt. What tangible offer can he make to reassure the House that the darkest fears of noble Lords on both sides of the House will not come true?

My Lords, I have never asked the House to trust me. I asked the House to trust in the facts. The facts are that any change in tax structures of the kind being referred to, other than those of limited circumstances already provided for in the treaty which has been in place for a long time, would require unanimity. As the Chancellor said when the question last arose, that is simply not going to happen.

My Lords, does the Minister not agree that the time bomb, so far as it relates to pensions, is the disparity between occupational pensions in this country and those of our partners in the European Community? If there is indeed going to be harmonisation, surely anyone who understands taxation is aware that that will apply to pensions. If there is a disparity between occupational pensions and the state pension, someone must find the balance. Would not that duty fall on British taxpayers?

My Lords, I do not know how many times I shall have to say this. Article 103 of the treaty states that there are no circumstances in which we can be called upon to bail out other European countries. Those countries which spend too much of their government expenditure on pensions are at risk. Under the terms of the growth and stability pact, they cannot meet the problem by excessive borrowing. They must deal with it either by cutting spending or by raising contributions. That is the issue which they are engaged in attacking at the moment. Under no circumstances will there be any consequence for British taxpayers.

My Lords, may I ask my noble friend to reflect on his remark about how often he has to answer the previous question? Is he not aware that once mythology takes over, there is nothing a rational person can do to destroy it? He must simply accept that these days that is the frame of mind of noble Lords opposite who cannot face reality in any way.

Hear, hear!

My Lords, all I can advise noble Lords opposite to do is to stop taking the tabloids!

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the Inland Revenue does not make owners open their private houses just to show their chattels. Many owners have already chosen to give public access by opening their houses, and others may find that that is the most convenient way to give improved access for the future. Owners know their own circumstances best and know best where to look for security advice if they want it.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Will the Minister comment on the fact that items may in fact now be placed in museums or galleries and not actually be on display but be available for view because there is a great shortage of display room available in galleries and museums? If the items were simply kept in museums to be viewed by appointment, might that solve the problems of a great number of people?

My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord is referring to the response I gave to a debate on that subject at the end of May, in, which I said that we were open to any suggestions about how to achieve the reasonable public access, which is the requirement of conditional exemption and which has so far not been achieved in far too many cases. Clearly, I cannot give any answer which could he taken as a judgment on what negotiations might take place between an individual owner and the Inland Revenue. However, the idea of a clearing-house which I put forward is being actively pursued by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. The idea to which the noble Lord refers of achieving access on demand rather than by prior appointment through the deposit of an item in a public space is certainly one of those being considered.

My Lords, I ask the Government what security advice they would give to owners of exempt chattels, a description of which must appear on the Internet in such detail as to make it obvious who owns the chattel and where it is probably located.

My Lords, I do not know whether my noble friend has interrogated the Internet. I have, and while it gives details about the chattel itself, the only detail of its location is that of an agent identified by the owner of the exempt chattel. I can find no way of identifying the location of the chattel except by approach to the agent. Our objective for the future is that there should be enough detail on the Internet and on the V&A list to ensure that there will be reasonable public access to the chattel.

My Lords, I do not wish to appear in any way churlish about the friendly answer given to my noble friend a moment ago. Just for the sake of students of the history of that particular branch of tax law, does the Minister agree that this is in fact a textbook case of the law of unintended consequences? In this case, the Government, wishing to correct the vagueness of a certain tax law, have in fact ended up creating an even worse muddle. If I have understood correctly, having abandoned their first idea of a public right to roam over people's private houses, the Government's new plan is that the owner of a piece of 16th century Chinese porcelain should put it in a van, drive it 100 miles to a museum, place it in a dark basement for between five and 25 days, then collect it and put it back where it was in the first place. Have I understood that correctly?

My Lords, I do not believe that the noble Lord has understood the position from the very beginning. Conditional exemption—which is exemption from inheritance tax—was given on the basis that there would be reasonable public access to the chattel exempted from tax. That was the deal. It was intended that access by prior appointment would be the very last resort. The change which has taken place is not that of the 1998 Budget, but in the application of the original deal, which has been widely disregarded so that access by prior appointment is the norm rather than the exception. The result has been that a large number of chattels which the public are entitled to see because tax revenue on them has been forgone are not in fact available.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the large exhibition at the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge of those conditionally exempt items? That is a precedent which could well be followed. What will he do to encourage other major museums in different parts of the United Kingdom to follow that excellent precedent?

My Lords, my noble friend is of course right. It is an excellent precedent. Alan Howarth, the Arts Minister, visited the Fitzwilliam Museum recently and confirmed that he would like to encourage an extension of that precedent. I must admit that the Fitzwilliam has the power to pick and choose the works of art which it wishes to show. It is likely that a large number of exempt works of art are not of sufficient quality under the previous definition for open exhibition in the Fitzwilliam Museum. However, we are certainly pursuing the extension and addition of the idea of access in public arts spaces and we shall continue with those efforts.

My Lords, since this provision is part of a Finance Act, will the Minister tell us whether the Treasury has any estimate of the yield in terms of money which it is likely to produce, and how that corresponds with the amount of money which the Government hand back to people running the country's heritage who do not have enough money in terms of grants?

My Lords, the estimate which we have and which I gave at the time of the debate is that the revenue forgone by the conditional exemption agreement is approximately £30 million net of any costs. That is the exact answer.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, members of the Royal Military Police investigation branch serving with the British deployment in KFOR are taking the lead in the investigation. We shall do all we can to assist KFOR, UNMIK and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in their investigations.

We wholeheartedly condemn the massacre and strongly endorse the statement of 26th July by the president of the UN Security Council expressing shock and concern and calling for a speedy and thorough investigation to bring to justice those responsible.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and congratulate her neighbour on her promotion to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, is sitting next to one of the finest models that she could find in this House of those who have had to answer Foreign Office Questions.

I am sure all Members of this House share the dismay and horror at the massacre of the 14 Serb farmers last week and will want to associate themselves with the Minister's remarks about the statement made on 26th July. She will know that Bernard Kouchner, the head of the civil arm in Kosovo, said that the cycle of violence must be broken. Can she therefore respond to two questions? First, is it correct that the number of international police officers in Kosovo still amounts to only a couple of hundred against the original target of 3,000? Secondly, what steps, if any, are being taken to bring about the disarming of the KLA? That is an important factor in trying to re-establish civic peace in Kosovo.

My Lords, I join in the warm congratulations paid by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, on the promotion of my noble friend Lady Scotland. It is an excellent appointment.

Breaking the cycle of violence in Kosovo is a crucial factor in KFOR's deployment at the moment. The noble Baroness expressed concern about the rates of deployment of police in Kosovo; but it was always envisaged that KFOR would have to undertake such duties until the police force was established. According to the United Nations figures given at the Security Council briefing last week, 126 United Nations police officers were present in Kosovo to establish a headquarters and to do the essential initial liaison work with KFOR. A further 20 were due to arrive on or around 18th July and thereafter it is scheduled that 100 officers will be arriving every five days until 23rd August, at which point deployment will increase to 200 every five days until the full contingent of over 3,100 is in place. I hope that that gives the noble Baroness some specific figures on how we hope the police deployment will go.

The noble Baroness was also concerned about what is happening in relation to the KLA. The undertaking given by the KLA on 21st June is comprehensive. It provides for a ceasefire; it provides for disengagement from the zones of conflict and for subsequent demilitarisation and reintegration into civilian society. We understand that this is a difficult period, but full assessment of the level of compliance is in progress by NATO. It is watching the situation carefully. The general level of compliance is said to be satisfactory.

My Lords, the House will be well aware how richly deserved is the promotion of the noble Baroness the Minister and how great a loss I shall feel at not being able to continue our constructive, if somewhat combative on occasions, dialogue on foreign affairs. I can only congratulate the wisdom of the Prime Minister on appointing the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, who I am sure will match the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, in every respect.

Given KFOR's mandate to provide protection for all the inhabitants in Kosovo—Serb and Albanian alike—and our commitment to provide humanitarian aid to the people of Serbia, can the Minister update the House on the number of Serb refugees who fled Kosovo and on how many Kosovar Serbs requested refuge in the United Kingdom?

My Lord, I thank the noble Lord for his kind congratulations. I am sure that he will enjoy a fruitful relationship with my noble friend, in the best possible sense of the word.

The noble Lord asked what is happening with refugees. A number of Serbs left Kosovo, as the House has discussed before. The figures are not entirely up to date; I am not sure whether the exact figures for this week are available. However, the last time I looked, the figures were in excess of 100,000.

A number of Serbs came to the United Kingdom before the end of the fighting because some Serbs who felt that they could not do Mr Milosevic's work in Kosovo came here as refugees. I am unable to distinguish between the Serbs and the ethnic Albanians who came to the United Kingdom as refugees because we offered refuge in this country to people who were displaced by the Milosevic regime without fear or favour with regard to their ethnic origins. I doubt therefore that I shall be able to give that specific breakdown. However, if more figures become available, I am sure that my noble friend will be able to supply them to the noble Lord.

My Lords, has it been made clear to the officers of the KLA that they have a responsibility to help in bringing to justice the murderers of the Serb farmers?

My Lords, it has been made clear to the KLA. Your Lordships may have seen a number of press statements on what the KLA said in condemning this matter. I am unable to confirm those statements. I asked about the KLA's official position, but as yet I do not have official confirmation of what the KLA said; I have only the press reports which your Lordships will have been able to read as well.

My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness on stepping into the frocked coat of Lord Kitchener and the cocked hat of Sir Winston Churchill as First Lord of the Admiralty.

Many different people are making up the police force in Kosovo. It will not be a proper police force. Would it not have been more sensible to ask just one country to run and recruit a proper police force so that the culture of that police force is homogenous and not heterogeneous?

My Lords, uncharacteristically, the noble Earl asked a question based on a false premise. The fact is that there will be an homogenous police force because it will be under the control of the OSCE. The OSCE has been establishing a police training school. The United Nations and the OSCE together drew up the criteria for the selection of officers, and recruitment has begun. Therefore, the worries expressed by the noble Earl have been taken into account. It is important that it is a multinational police force so that no one side believes that the police force will have a specific preference in Kosovo. The training school will be establishing common criteria and be under common leadership. I hope that answers the noble Earl's point.

My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Perhaps I may explain the background to this Motion. The House will remember that in November 1996 the House agreed to a resolution providing for a sum of money to be set aside for each of the two main Opposition parties in your Lordships' House. That became known as the "Cranborne money". The Committee on Standards in Public Life, chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neill of Blaydon, in its fifth report on the funding of political parties, made recommendations concerned with the Cranborne money, along with a range of other matters which were covered in the Government's White Paper and draft Bill announced by my noble and learned friend Lord Williams of Mostyn on Tuesday.

The Neill committee recommended that the parties in the Lords should review the Cranborne money scheme with,

"a view to increasing it".

The House will be pleased to hear that the Government accepted that recommendation. The first paragraph of the resolution standing in my name on the Order Paper today accordingly provides that the money available under the Cranborne scheme should be doubled with effect from the start of the present financial year.

The remaining paragraphs of the resolution before your Lordships today propose a new scheme under which the Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers would, with effect from 1st October this year, have his own fund to assist him in carrying out parliamentary business on behalf of the Cross-Bench Peers. This scheme mirrors the Cranborne money scheme and is very much in the spirit of the report of the Neill committee and the Government's response to it. I am pleased to say that both Opposition parties have wholly supported the proposal that the Convenor should be funded in this way. I am sure that your Lordships will join me in supporting this recognition of the important work of the Cross-Bench Peers.

My Lords, perhaps I may say a few words of welcome for this resolution. No Scotsman ever looks a gift-horse in the mouth, but I have to say that we did think that this might come a little sooner. Although we are very grateful for what has been done, we are interested to see that the Treasury has decided that the up-rating in your Lordships' House should be less than that for the House of Commons. I hope that that is not a reflection of its view of the success, or otherwise, of the quality of the opposition to the Government in both Houses. I am sure that it is not. Indeed, we are grateful for what the noble Baroness has done.

During the days when the Cranborne money was introduced. I felt that it was absolutely right that we should recognise the position of the then opposition, who were having to work very hard on a number of very important Bills with very few resources. It is a sensible, new suggestion for the way that the House of Lords conducts its business. It is equally welcome that the Cross-Benchers are recognised and that some of the Cranborne money goes to the Convenor of the Cross-Benches.

I am happy to say that this is a rare occasion for me, as I am responding to the Leader of the House in the absence of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde—or, as he was wrongly titled yesterday in the Telegraph "the Earl of Strathclyde". He is not in fact out receiving his earldom; he is actually attending a wedding. I am standing in for him on this rare occasion, and I am happy to agree with the noble Baroness the Leader of the House.

My Lords, I regret that I must delay the further proceedings of the House for some minutes to explain why, from these Benches, we find the resolution thoroughly unsatisfactory and cannot support it. I should like to refer to the course of events which led to this resolution being tabled, to the substance of our objection to it and to the future of the arrangements of financial assistance to parties in the House—as the noble Baroness the Leader of the House said, the Cranborne money.

Perhaps I may make it clear that we greatly welcome the help for the Cross-Bench Peers; indeed, we would have been willing to support a proposal for a much larger sum if it had been requested. I should also like to make it clear, as I did to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who explained why he could not be present this afternoon, that we have no objection at all to the quantum, the amount, of the support for the Conservative Peers—namely, £216,842—though it might seem odd to outsiders that this money is to be doubled when the number of Conservative Peers is almost to be halved.

Our quarrel is with comparisons. Doubling the original Cranborne money may be a fair deal for the Conservatives, but I have to say that it is a rotten one for these Benches. In that respect, much as I regret having to say so, I must explain to the House that my quarrel is with the Leader of the House. Perhaps I may refer to the correspondence that I have had with the Leader of the House which led to the resolution before us today.

On 17th March of this year, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, wrote to the Leader of the House asking for an increase in the Cranborne money. There was a request from the noble Lord for a discussion "at an early opportunity"; indeed, the noble Lord kindly copied his letter to me. On 23rd March I wrote to be Leader of the House referring to the "Strathclyde letter", and making it clear that I would be happy to join in discussions on behalf of these Benches.

On 24th March, the Leader of the House wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, sending a copy to me, stating that she would welcome "a discussion" After a gap of one month, during which time I heard no further news, I wrote to the Leader of the House again and made a proposal for a settlement. In my letter to the noble Baroness, I said that I would welcome an early discussion. Two months later, on 28th June, I received from the Leader of the House what she called "a final response", which offered a wholly unacceptable solution. There had not been any discussion at any stage whatever, despite my requests and my expectations. I believe that to be totally contrary to the normal courtesies and practice of this House. It was an arbitrary decision. It was only when I said that I could not undertake to support any resolution put before the House that I had a meeting with the noble Baroness, to which I shall refer later.

I turn now to the substance of the issue. Here I make comparisons with the treatment of the Conservative Peers. Again, I am concerned with the differential and in no way with the amount. In my letter of 24th April to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House I referred to the principle of proportionality spelt out in the Government's own Lords White Paper, on the record, fully understood by the House and mentioned in our debates in this Chamber on the Bill currently under consideration. I suggested that, if we were to follow that principle, there would be just over 50 per cent for these Benches of what the Conservative Peers receive. The Leader of the House replied saying, no: she was not

"in a position to agree with this request".

However, at last we did have a discussion. The Leader of the House repeated that she was not able to agree with the principle which I proposed: it was a principle that would set aside the arbitrary nature of the decision; and, indeed, the arbitrary nature of the original decision, welcomed though it was in November 1996. I hoped that the noble Baroness would provide an alternative formula by which these matters might be determined in future. There was a discussion about a reasonable compromise of, perhaps, £20,000 more for these Benches. That was less than I had hoped for, but more than she had hitherto suggested. I thought that that was a reasonable prospect, because at this point the Leader of the House showed some sympathy with the idea that there might be a settlement which we would be able to support.

However, after an interval of a few days, the answer was, no: not a penny more than she had originally proposed. I break no confidences when I say that the noble Baroness said that the Treasury would not agree. I was once a Treasury Minister. It is inconceivable that, at that time, I would have refused a request for £20,000 from a Cabinet Minister; indeed, £20,000 is peanuts, peanuts, peanuts! In my time, I was also a Minister in a spending department. Had I approached the Treasury at that time, it is inconceivable that I would have been refused such a sum of money. I have to say that either the Leader of the House has no clout with her colleagues—and that is not what I have been led to expect—or she did not really try. With the greatest regret, I have to say that it must be one or the other.

On 8th July, I gladly supported from these Benches the Ministerial and other Salaries Order 1999. The order provides for an increase in the salaries of Ministers in this House. I supported it because they deserve it. The order also increased the salaries of the Leader of the Conservative Opposition and the Chief Opposition Whip to £55,000 and £51,000 respectively. I did not, and do not, begrudge that money in any way. But allowing for the Cranborne money, the Conservative Party in this House is sustained to the value of well over £300,000, nearer £325,000, by resolution of this House. However, these Benches will have only the £65,000 mentioned in this order. It is disgraceful.

The role of the third party in this House is recognised. I call it the "third party" but the original resolution of 27th November 1996 referred to the "second largest opposition party". That was defined in paragraph 6 of that resolution. The role of the third party—the second opposition party—is fully recognised on all sides of this House. We contribute to all debates and to the scrutiny of legislation. Custom and practice give us a status here as a third party—a second opposition party—that is not given in the Commons. The Companion to the Standing Orders, which we always have beside us, fully acknowledges our role and our historic position. We are being offered in total one-fifth of the financial help available to the Conservative Party, although in terms of service to the House it should be in the region of 65 to 70 per cent, and I put that modestly.

These are my final words. We must be one of the few parliaments in the world where the government of the day have a free hand in determining financial help to the opposition parties; in other words, deciding how much to give to those who will oppose them. I believe that it is time for a change. If this were the only outcome of our discussion this afternoon, and of the representations I have made to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, it would be a substantial gain for all of us. Indeed, if the Leader of the House is able to indicate that this proposal is attractive to her, it will do something to soften the sense of outrage we otherwise have.

The principle, the proportionality and also the quantum of support for opposition parties should be decided by an independent outside body. It could be the Neill committee, but if, for whatever reason, the Neill committee is not suitable, an ad hoc body should be established without delay. I believe that that is a reasonable proposition which should recommend itself to all reasonable Members of your Lordships' House in whatever party they sit, or whether they sit in any party at all. The present position, like the resolution, is wholly unsatisfactory, and there is a way of changing it.

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I shall gloss over the peculiar lack of grace which I consider the noble Lord has shown in responding to the Motion moved by the noble Baroness. Does he also have it in mind that he is complaining about the sums of money which he is receiving in relation to the party for which he speaks, and in relation to the five or six times greater number of Cross-Benchers who are being treated extremely generously at last? I use the word "generously" as there has been nil before this. Is it not rather odd that the noble Lord has made the speech he has just made?

My Lords, if that was an intervention, I am glad to reply. I do not know whether the noble Lord heard what I said initially when I made it absolutely clear that I supported the support for the Cross-Bench Peers. Indeed, I said that I would welcome giving them more if they had asked for more. That stands—and nothing I subsequently said prejudiced that in any other way. I repeat that my argument is with the noble Baroness the Leader of the House who fully understands that. I do not believe that I said anything in bad grace. We have to face these issues head on. If no one else speaks for these Benches, we have to do it ourselves.

My Lords, before the noble Baroness the Leader of the House responds, I hope I may say that we on these Benches are not concerned with proportionality. We number 351 at the moment, which is rather larger than the Liberal Democrat Party. Nevertheless, the sum of money which we have been given, £20,000, will enable my successor as the Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers to have a secretary to assist him or her, for which we are deeply grateful.

My Lords, I hope that I may delay your Lordships for half a minute and possibly give the noble Baroness a little time to compose herself after that somewhat acrimonious speech from the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers. I sometimes find these somewhat intellectual, economic arguments a little difficult to follow. Can the noble Baroness explain what is meant by paragraph (3)(b)? It states,

"for the year beginning with 1st April 2000, £20,000, but increased by the percentage (if any) by which the retail prices index for March 2000 has increased compared with the index for March 1999, and (if the resulting amount is not a whole number of pounds) rounded to the nearest pound; and".

I am not quite certain as regards the idea of comparing the relative retail prices indices and what the effect will be.

My Lords, I say to the noble Earl that I am quite composed. The paragraph he has quoted simply refers to the requirement to index the primary sum agreed—which will be £20,000 from next April—on the basis of inflation. I agree that it is put in somewhat arcane language, but that is how I understand the position. I believe that that is the straightforward explanation. In our positive discussions, the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, said that he was prepared to accept £10,000 for this year, starting on 1st October, and that the full sum should be taken on the basis of next April's figures.

My Lords, as I understand the noble Baroness, that is straightforward indexation and the index relating to 2000 has nothing to do with the index relating to the previous year.

My Lords, that is an important point. Put in those terms, I am not immediately sure that I can give the noble Earl a precise answer. However, I understand the basic principle; namely, that the £10,000 is agreed, and that the £20,000 from next April onwards has the inflation-related point included in it. However, I shall check carefully the point that the noble Earl has made.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, for supporting the Motion on behalf of his party. I believe that it represents a relatively good "deal". I shall not, of course, comment on the relative performance of the Opposition in this House or in another place. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, for what he said. It is important that we recognise the significant work of the Cross-Bench Peers and the way in which, up until now, they have organised themselves not on an amateur basis, but on a rather unprofessional basis—in terms of lack of professional support. It is important that that is changed.

Your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that I am somewhat disappointed with the response of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank. I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, in describing the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, as less than gracious. The noble Lord expressed a general dissatisfaction with the Cranborne money scheme and the way in which the Liberal Democrat Party has been treated.

There was an opportunity for the noble Lord and his party to make such representations before the discussion was held about the arrangements for this present settlement, when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neill, held his hearings and took evidence. I am not aware that any evidence was given by the noble Lord on the matter of the Cranborne money. I understand that oral evidence was given by the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, and that he gave a personal, written submission. However, as I understand the position, there was no evidence from the noble Lord or his party which suggested to the Neill committee that the basis for the Cranborne money should be reviewed. That seems to me to have been the appropriate opportunity to make such representations.

The noble Lord expressed concern about the proportion of moneys as between the two opposition parties under the scheme. All I can say to that is that we are where we are. When the Cranborne money was introduced in 1996, a proportion of money was made available to each of the two opposition parties and that proportion has been maintained in the Motion before your Lordships today.

I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, personally feels hard done by. He expressed concern that he was not properly consulted about the details of the scheme. I am sure that the noble Lord will recollect that, following the meeting that I had with him, I put forward a number of options to try to cover some of his concerns. Although they had not been addressed in the conventional forum of the Neill committee, I approached the Treasury but there was no more money on the table. I believe that it is entirely inappropriate for him to suggest that I gave him any kind of understanding that there may be. I point out to the House that the Cranborne money has been doubled in less than four years.

My Lords, how would making representations to the Neill committee have made any difference if there was no more money on the table?

My Lords, if the more general principled points concerning proportionality and the particular virtues and work of the Liberal Democratic Party, which the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, expressed at some length this afternoon, were such that he thought they should have been represented in the report of the Neill committee, presumably that forum was the appropriate place to make them.

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

had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 452ZAB:

moved Amendment No. 452A:

We have a number of amendments in this group. We made an attempt about 10 days ago to have the grouping split. Something rather odd seems to have happened to it: a few amendments have been removed, but the group remains almost the same length. I am sorry if some Members of the Committee are confused, having been warned that the group would be broken down into smaller and more easily handled groups. I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 452AA, 452YC, 452ZC and 452ZD. My noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury will speak to Amendment No. 452DA, and to Amendments Nos. 452UJ, 452VJ, 452WJ, 452XJ, 452YJ and 453B.

Perhaps I may say in response to a comment made by the noble Baroness that she is obviously as nice a person as I always thought that she was, not having yet seen any characteristics in any of the mayoral candidates that might at some future point lead Londoners to wonder whether, if that candidate were to be elected—and I speak of no particular candidate—the right person was in place. I am also trying to choose words that have no gender designation. The noble Baroness is right. Qualities may emerge, either from candidates whom we know or from those whom we do not yet know, which could be a problem.

The first of our amendments on the general area of the constitution of the group proposes that the group is selected from the bodies designated by the mayor. The schedule requires the members to be representatives of those bodies. We are not clear whether that means that they must be serving members of those bodies in order to fulfil the description "representatives". The word has an "s" on the end, which means that it is slightly different from what might be indicated by "representative of".

Amendment No. 452YC would require the mayor to consult the assembly before the appointment. We make the point here, and indeed as a general point in the various amendments towards the end of the grouping, that the assembly should have a role. There is a particular point in the area of the cultural strategy. This part of the Bill reads very much as though culture is a matter for London as a capital city. As I read it, it fails to place any emphasis on the importance of culture, leisure and so on, for people who live and work in London. Both the Conservatives and these Benches have tabled specific amendments on the matter in relation to later parts of the Bill. We believe that the assembly will be well placed to ensure that the diverse nature of London and Londoners and the sheer size of the place are not overlooked. The members of the assembly will be well placed to assist in the appointment procedure and to ensure that those who think about London do not merely think about culture within the few miles in the centre. A similar point is made in Amendment No. 452ZC.

Amendment No. 452ZD describes the bodies that should be among those to be consulted in connection with the appointments. We do not seek to be exclusive in listing those groups. However, we do want to point up the major areas of experience and interest. One might alternatively refer to bodies with the knowledge and experience of the areas listed in Clause 301(5) relating to the subject matter to be dealt with by the group. In response to a similar amendment, the Minister in another place said that the mayor should not be constrained in promoting and co-ordinating culture. That is not what we seek at all. We want to make sure that the entire process is not exclusive of London's very rich experience. Subsequent amendments deal, again, with the position of the assembly in this area, as there is a particular concern.

I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 452DA, 452UJ, 452VJ, 452WJ, 452XJ and 452YJ. It is not as formidable as it sounds, thank goodness. They are rather short points.

Amendment No. 452DA relates to Schedule 25. It simply provides that, as regards the chair of the cultural strategy group—an important position—the most apt group to appoint or elect the chair should be the group itself, not the mayor. That is not to cast any doubt on the bona fides of the mayor; it merely follows ancient practice as regards group dynamics; namely, that the best person to lead a group is a member of the group itself, as it may select. The other amendments all relate to the balance of power and responsibility as between the mayor and the assembly under Clause 301.

This is a probing amendment. It seems to these Benches that, as regards the draft strategy, and the final strategy for culture, media and sport in the capital city, a better balance would be to make the mayor and the assembly jointly responsible. Thus, all the amendments require the cultural strategy group to deal equally with the mayor and the assembly.

I must congratulate my noble friend Lady Anelay on the extremely succinct and clear way in which she spoke to this large and rather complicated group of amendments. She made her points very clearly, and I was impressed by that.

I turn to Amendments Nos. 452A and 452B. I believe that it would be sensible if the experts on the body were in the majority. If that was known to be the case, it would be more convincing to all concerned. I would have thought that the London Tourist Board had a particular part to play here, and it would be wise to ensure that that body was on the face of the Bill.

It should not be possible for the mayor to inflict on the group for a long time a chairman who was unacceptable to it. I do not know how that is to be achieved or whether my noble friend's suggestions are sensible, but there could be trouble if the mayor selected a crony (for lack of a better word) that the group did not like and left him or her there. I believe that the question whether that should be impossible is worthy of consideration. It is also probably wise to clarify whether the members of the group can stay for an unlimited time. I should not have thought that that need be left to the mayor. When setting up such a group in this Chamber we usually prescribe terms of office, and that may be helpful in this case. However, perhaps the situation is so different that the Government are justified in leaving it to the mayor. I just wonder whether in this respect too much is being placed on the mayor which may spell trouble.

I refer next to the amendments to which the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has just spoken. He has done so succinctly, for which I am sure the Committee is grateful. But it seems to me that a great many of the amendments moved by the Liberal Democrats in the passage of this Bill say the same thing; namely, that the assembly and mayor should frequently act together, that the mayor should at least consult the assembly, or that the assembly should have much more power than the Government have anticipated. The Government could have introduced a Bill in which the relationship between the mayor and assembly was something like that envisaged by the Liberal Democrats but they did not. The Liberal Democrats have disagreed, but noble Lords on those Benches could have clarified the point in two or three amendments at the beginning of Committee stage and not repeated it over and over again. Today, we have before us Amendments Nos. 452ZC, 452UJ, 452VJ, 452WJ, 452YJ and several other amendments that are to be moved separately. All of them repeat the same point.

Speaking for myself, I believe that there has been an uneconomic use of parliamentary time in debating this point over and over again in different amendments. I do not criticise the fact that noble Lords have taken advantage of our freedom in this Chamber to talk as much as we like. We do not like our freedom to be curtailed, but we owe it to ourselves and the public not to use parliamentary time unwisely. Nor do I criticise noble Lords for what they are doing today. Clearly, the message has got through since this amendment was moved very briefly, but I believe that this is a simple point which has been clarified by the Government. I hope that when we get to Report stage we have only one or two amendments to test the point and do not repeat it over and over again.

I hope that noble Lords will not take exception to my remarks, but as a Back-Bencher—no one has put me up to this—I feel strongly that the passage of this Bill, which has taken nine days in Committee, has been unduly long. There are a number of matters that I would have liked to discuss in that parliamentary time other than this Bill. However, I support the points that my noble friend has made in speaking to these amendments.

Perhaps I may intervene briefly to deal with the question of the appointment of the chairman. I fully take the point that we do not want the appointment of cronies. On the other hand, this gives rise to difficulties. In the case of the National Gallery, the chairman is appointed by the trustees from among the trustees; in the case of the British Museum, it is a Crown appointment. There is no single method that is always acceptable and followed by government. Perhaps one can get round the difficulty by saying that if it is for the mayor to appoint the chairman it can be done only through formal consultation with the members of the committee.

For the record, if for nothing else, perhaps I may explain to the Committee, in response to the observations of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, that not only were we concerned about the substantive issue of the role of the assembly but we were also well aware that we would be accused of inconsistency if we did not pick up the point. The issue is slightly different at different points throughout the Bill. Had the noble Baroness been with the Committee two days ago she would have witnessed the extraordinary pace that it managed to keep up in going through the amendments that day. That has been fairly characteristic of the contributions to the debates on a Bill which contains, I believe, 320 clauses—perhaps it is now 330 clauses—and 27 schedules. That is in considerable contradistinction to the consideration of the House of Lords Bill, which contains five clauses and has taken up a very great deal of time. I shall not take up further time in defending what I regard as a position which needs no excuse.

For the record, I do not believe that I left the Chamber until 10.35 p.m.

The noble Baroness in her opening speech—we are grateful for the 51 minutes that she saved—invited me to respond not only to the amendments in the group but to say a word about the cultural strategy in the framework within which this schedule is placed. Before that, for the record I understand, and in some ways admire, the persistence of the Liberal Democrat Party in discovering every occasion on which the relationship between the mayor and assembly may be questioned and pursuing it. They have done so again today. Therefore, it means that I must repeat the words of the Minister for London in Committee in another place:

"The mayor will exercise the majority of the authority's functions, including the power to promote the authority's general purpose. The assembly will hold the mayor to account for the decisions that he or she takes. That is a model for good, accountable administration".—[Official Report, Commons; Standing Committee A, 2/2/99; col. 220.]

In other words, the distinction between executive power and scrutiny is fundamental. I am afraid that wherever amendments go against that we must oppose them, as we have opposed them in earlier parts of the Bill.

As far as concerns the cultural strategy, we are certainly apprised of the importance to London, the country and the world of Part X of the Bill. We look to the mayor to inspire and lead London, to ensure that all Londoners—I take the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about the diversity of London's population—benefit from an enhanced quality of life and—this is not in contradistinction—that the city enters the next century as the place that others most admire and wish to visit. The mayor's role in championing the cultural sectors is one that appeals widely to the public. The cultural strategy group for London will be the principal advisory tool to help achieve the mayor's vision for London. Therefore, let there be no doubt about the importance of Part X to the Government in the framing of this legislation.

I turn to the amendments. These amendments would modify Schedule 25, which defines the role and composition of the cultural strategy group for London. We consider that we have achieved the right balance between allowing proper discretion to the mayor and a framework of statutory controls.

The overall purpose of these amendments seems to be to limit the power of the mayor to determine the nature and size of the body and the terms of appointment to it. In this, as I have made clear, they run counter to the intentions of the Bill. In particular, a number of the amendments would couple the assembly with the mayor. That, as I have said, is entirely at variance with the structure of the Greater London Authority.

Others of these amendments are reasonable in themselves. However, it is our policy, embodied in the Bill, to give the mayor reasonable discretion in relation to his advisory body. We have set limits for the size of the cultural strategy group for London within which the mayor can determine its size. To limit the scope further would be to trespass on the mayor's ability to choose his or her own advisory body; that is Amendment No. 452A. It is also for the mayor to appoint somebody to chair the body from among its members. Amendment No. 452D seeks to delete that provision, while Amendments Nos. 452C and 452DA would require the body to elect its own chairman.

I listened, of course, to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, and I take his point about group dynamics. However, we have here a body of people that is representative of a wide range of fields of culture. It could be as large as 25 people. How are they going to get together to appoint their own chairman at their first meeting, when they probably do not know each other very well because they are in different fields? The power that the mayor has in making the appointment of a chairman is to appoint somebody who has authority and experience over as wide a range of cultural fields as possible.

It is also for the mayor to determine the terms on which members are appointed. Amendment No. 452E would cap the total time that a member could serve at eight years. Amendments Nos. 452DB and 452DC would provide a detailed statutory control on the terms of appointment. The mayor may indeed choose to adopt the terms suggested in the amendment; that would be entirely proper. However, there is no reason for us to fix such terms in statute. The Bill is long enough and detailed enough as it stands.

Above all, it is for the mayor to determine which matters are relevant to the culture strategy. That is a matter which the candidates for mayor will put to the people, and the people of London will judge whether the candidate for mayor is making the right proposals. He has to determine which matters are relevant. He has to select the members, because it then becomes his responsibility to answer for his selection.

Amendment No. 452AA would have the effect of narrowing the range of bodies. I was asked whether the representatives need to be members of the bodies which they represent. The answer is that in the Bill they do not, but under Amendment No. 452AA they would be obliged to be members of the bodies. Those bodies may wish to have representatives who are not currently members of the bodies concerned.

Amendment No. 452B would make specific reference to the London Tourist Board. Tourism is, of course, a very important topic. We shall be discussing that topic later. The mayor may well wish to include somebody from the London Tourist Board. I repeat the tributes that have been paid in another place to the work of the board. We would welcome such an appointment. However, it is already possible for the mayor to make such an appointment within the terms of the Bill as it stands.

I should not single out tourism and the London Tourist Board alone. Amendment No. 452ZD seeks to define the types of bodies that the mayor will consult in considering appointments to the cultural strategy group. It lists a number of sectors, including arts, museums, and libraries. Of course, this list contains good things. However, it does not appear to include archives. I note this for the benefit of the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, who makes the point about archives later on. I am sure that the mayor will want to work closely with organisations dealing with all these subjects. They are already represented on the informal London heritage forum, from whose good work the mayor will benefit.

My problem is that this list, like that other one to which we will return, runs the risk of being thought exclusive. This again is a theme which has been present throughout the consideration of this Bill. We have lists in parts of the Bill, but they are intended to be illustrative rather than inclusive. If we did not have them at all, we would be accused of failing to be explicit enough in legislation. If we go on adding to them, we run the risk of, by definition, excluding those who have no champions in this House or in another place. I therefore commend the principle that allows the mayor full discretion to determine those matters and those bodies which should be considered in appointments to the cultural strategy group and to select the most appropriate representatives.

Other amendments seek to nail down the constitution of the strategy group. Amendment No. 452G requires the mayor to make payments to the group in respect of its proper expenses. We wish to be less dictatorial. We are confident that the group, as constituted by Schedule 25, will be able to fulfil its role in advising the mayor on the culture strategy, properly and accountably.

Some amendments are simply unnecessary. Amendment No. 453BA requires the mayor to give a reasonable length of time when directing the group to draw up and present a cultural strategy. The mayor must act reasonably in all legislation. I therefore cannot see that such a provision serves any purpose.

Amendments Nos. 452DD and 452DE are also unnecessary. The mayor can already define the circumstances in which he may terminate the appointment of a member who is unable or unfit to act. The deletion of the word "But" at the beginning of subsection (3) would do little either to add to or diminish from the mayor's powers. I found it a little odd. It is unusual to find the word "But" at the beginning of a sentence in legislation. I admire the grammatical sense of those who question it, but it does not actually make any difference.

Amendment No. 452F relates to the payment of expenses. I am advised that these will be payable only in relation to duties "properly incurred" as members of the group. The proposed additional phrase is therefore unnecessary.

Amendment No. 453G is at least partly unnecessary. It is, in any case, inappropriate. It would give the group the power to publish any objections to any revisions to the mayor's strategy, but only if there is a two-thirds majority. The group can already publish its findings; that is the unnecessary part. Following on from that, to require a two-thirds majority before publication is actually a restriction on the group's freedom; that is the inappropriate part.

However, I am glad of the opportunity to record that the Government propose to table a technical amendment at Report stage to provide an explicit power for the mayor to publish a revised cultural strategy. This will bring the mayor's powers for culture in line with the powers in relation to all the other strategies.

Finally, I come to Amendment No. 455QJA. This seeks to provide an explicit power for the group to act on behalf of the authority in respect of its grant powers. I can confirm that we also intend to lay an amendment on Report that will provide a much wider power for the group to act for the authority in respect of all its functions under Part X of the Bill.

I am sorry to have taken up so much time. This is a very large group of amendments. I therefore felt that I had to respond to each amendment individually. They are all interesting and serious amendments. I hope that, on the basis of what I have said, the respective noble Baronesses and noble Lords will feel able to withdraw them.

I thank all members of the Committee who have taken part in this fairly lengthy debate on this group of amendments. I suspect that it may be our longest debate on any group today. Perhaps I will be proved wrong by noble Lords.

I am particularly grateful for the support that I have received from my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour. I was interested in the view put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, with regard to the method of choosing the chairman of the group. I found it intriguing. I will certainly consider it before Report.

I am particularly grateful to the Minister for putting on record the Government's views. I believe that they are expressed more clearly than they were in another place. I believe that it has been advanced slightly. The Government talk about "soon", "shortly" and "sometime". This is "slightly" and "perhaps you may have more on another occasion". We shall certainly pursue the matter.

I am interested to learn that there will be two technical amendments at Report stage from the Government. I look forward to the opportunity of looking at those. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Before the noble Baroness withdraws her amendment, I should like to thank the Minister for the way he has expressed his views on the matter. I shall have to accept with good grace the fact that the Government do not agree with the views we hold on these Benches vis-à-vis the balance between the different components.

I should be grateful if the Minister could consider one point, and perhaps write to me on it. Amendment No. 452AA refers to Schedule 25 which talks about the representatives of bodies; that is, the members of the cultural strategy group shall be individuals who are representatives of such bodies concerned with relevant matters, as the mayor considers appropriate. The amendment was tabled in an attempt to de-intensify the relationship between individuals selected by the different members of the key groups within the London art world so that when they came to the cultural strategy group they would not be there as representatives of their different bodies—albeit that they were selected by those bodies. It is to be hoped, therefore, that their prime allegiance would be to the group, even though they came from different sectors of the arts community. That is not an unimportant issue to consider. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that.

I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining his intentions. However, it is in conflict with the amendment before us. The amendment says that they would have to be members.

They should be "selected from" rather than "selected by".

In that case, the noble Lord may need to think about what he wishes to do at a later stage. However, I should not invite that.

The Government's position is that the selection shall be made by the mayor, and not by the bodies, from such persons as he considers to be representative. Having said that, it has been left as open as possible. For example, if someone is representative of dance, one can imagine the number of different bodies who would claim to represent a part of the dance community: classical dance, modern dance and so forth. The mayor must choose someone who is as representative as possible. For that reason, we have tried to make the provision open rather than restrictive.

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment: No. 452GA:

I do not read this as a simple drafting amendment. I thought the wording in the schedule meant that the group could raise a great deal of money itself. The mayor would have the discretion to allocate as much money as seemed appropriate. Will the Minister clarify the issue?

The Bill states that the group may own property. Would it be able to charge rent on a part of that property and use the proceeds for its own purposes? Would it be able to make charges? I thought those matters were implied in this part of the Bill, but perhaps the Minister will explain the situation more clearly.

I do not see this amendment as a drafting amendment. It is a requirement for the mayor to pay the properly incurred expenses of the group in full, without leaving him or her any discretion to determine how far it is right to defray the group's expenses. There is no question of propriety here and I am not casting aspersions on future members of the group. The schedule makes it clear that in both cases the group's expenses must be properly incurred. However, the group will be free in what it can do. It may decide to undertake certain duties that properly incur expenses but are not considered by the mayor as appropriate matters for support. That is for the mayor to decide.

The group will be a body established to advise and support the mayor, and it will be for the mayor to determine how far—in part, in full or if at all— it will be appropriate to fund the cultural strategy group, which is primarily an advisory body. Clearly, a sensible relationship between the mayor and the group will ensure that there is discussion as to what the group will do and that the mayor agrees that what it does is justified. Under those circumstances there is no reason why the mayor should not defray all the expenses. However, we do not wish to put into statute that that must always be the case.

In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, I did not take it that the alternative would be for the group to raise its own money. It is an advisory body, and while it is theoretically conceivable that it might make a profit from owning property, that is not its function. The group should be funded by the mayor to carry out those activities the mayor wants it to undertake.

Is it not possible for the group to charge rent? When you own property you may use two-thirds or three-quarters of it, and rent out the rest. Could not the group take on the duty of collecting rent, or would the mayor need do that? I believe that the Bill should be clear on the position.

As I said, it is theoretically possible that the group might do so to cover some of its expenses. However, that is not the object of the exercise.

I presume from what the Minister said that in effect the cultural strategy group will need to enter into a contract with the mayor before it incurs any expenditure in order to be sure of being reimbursed.

I think we are being too formal here.

I do not think that this is a formality.

The group and the mayor would be well advised to talk to each other. Subject to that, we shall leave the relationship—including the financial relationship—as open as we can. On that basis, I ask the noble Lord not to press the amendment.

I thank the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 452HB:

I hope I can give the noble Lord the assurance that he seeks in order that there may be no humming and hawing and legal advice. I am advised that there is no legal barrier to the cultural strategy group setting up committees, including committees of co-opted non-members. I do not resist the amendment in any spirit of opposition. It is entirely appropriate that the members should be able to draw in others relevant to their work and discuss it with them in committees. It is simply that the amendment is not needed.

With that assurance, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

I gave notice that I would oppose the Question that Schedule 25 be agreed to in order to ask the Government how they would expect the cultural strategy group to relate to other similar groups which, we are told, will be established throughout the regions and how they might relate also to the Secretary of State. In effect, the cultural strategy group is the first of the regional cultural consortiums to be created. It is the outcome of the passage through the House last year of the Regional Development Agencies Bill. In a sense we have been told to expect that RCCs will be set up around the country. How will they relate to each other and how will they relate individually to the overall authority of the Secretary of State? Can the Minister explain how the creation of the cultural strategy group, which encompasses tourism within its remit, will then relate to RCCs and regional tourist boards nationally?

In another place, the Minister's colleague, the Minister for London, Mr Raynsford, sought to answer such questions by referring vaguely to the Government's aim to establish a network of organisations. These organisations are not equal and equivalent to each other. At the moment, of course, only this one is to be created. We have no view of how the others may be constituted or indeed whether there may be other cultural strategy groups for large metropolitan areas as opposed to RDAs. How will these organisations be networked? At the moment, as I have mentioned privately to the Minister, rather than there being a net, I can see the holes but I certainly cannot see the strings holding it all together. I hope that since the Bill left another place the Minister and the Government have had an opportunity to consider this matter further and can give the Committee greater guidance today or, if they cannot, then before the passage of the Bill through the House.

The answer I have to give to the noble Baroness builds on what she said a few minutes ago about the regional cultural consortia, the regional tourist hoards and others not being equal and equivalent. Indeed, they are not. They are developing. They are developing as regional development agencies develop. The relationship between them and the cultural strategy group for London is one which in turn will, and must, develop. I see the noble Baroness's point about the need for a network. What I do not see is why and how it could possibly be a statutory network.

I am not alone in saying that there needs to be a network, which is a fruitful way to function. I pointed out that the Minister's colleague in another place said that there would be a network.

I am sure that there will be, but it will not be established by statute. That is the point I want to make. It is so clearly in the interests of the regional cultural consortia and the cultural strategy group for London to talk to each other, to co-ordinate with each other and to ensure that they are not missing things or overlapping that they will do that out of self-interest. What I cannot imagine is how we would amend Schedule 25, which is what we are debating, in order to ensure that that is the case. Perhaps I may give as an example the existing regional arts councils. There is no formal statutory network, but they meet from time to time. Indeed, until recently, their chairmen were members of the Arts Council. But when they ceased to be members of the Arts Council, they still met together. They do it because they need to do it and because they want to do it, not because we impose it by statute.

moved Amendment No. 452ZJ:

With the permission of the Committee, I shall speak to Amendment No. 455A, which is grouped with Amendment No. 452ZJ.

Amendment No. 455WA.

I am grateful for the Minister's help.

It is all part of the service.

I am glad to hear that it is all part of the Government's service. We may call upon that even more later on.

Like the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, my amendment addresses the issue of the conference industry. In fact, 1 would take it rather further. My amendment seeks to raise questions about the Government's intentions towards the meetings and incentives industry. The industry contributes significantly to the United Kingdom economy yet politicians in both Houses pay it relatively little attention. In Clause 306(1)(b) there is a fleeting reference to business travel. That defines "tourist amenities and facilities" to include those used by people travelling in London on business. But it is a very general use of the term "business travel", and, like the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I seek reassurance from the Government. After all, it could simply mean a resident of London who is a sales person travelling within London in the course of his or her normal daily work.

I am advised that the convention and incentives industry is worth about 200 billion dollars worldwide, and in Europe about half that. Its impact on communications and its role in every aspect of daily life—financial, cultural, political and social—are enormous.

Here I can declare something of an interest, which I always try to do when I manage to enjoy one. In May this year the British Tourist Authority was kind enough to nominate me and my Whip, my noble friend Lord Luke, to attend the meetings and incentives annual exhibition in Geneva—at the Palexpo—so that I could learn more about the industry. I was pleased to see the Liberal Democrats also represented. Regrettably, none of the Government's party happened to be there, on the day that I was there, nor, I am informed, later in the week. They missed an interesting and informative occasion.

Europe still has more international congresses than any other continent, but the European market share is being whittled down by other areas, by between 2 per cent and 3 per cent a year. It is the industry's view that this can be stopped only by careful, planned promotion of the industry in all EU countries, aimed particularly, of course, at the North American market.

The industry is well established in London, but it needs to work hard to stay ahead. I am sure that other noble Lords will join me in congratulating the London Tourist Board and the Convention Bureau, which are working hard to do just that. But more needs to be done.

The British Hospitality Association very recently produced a helpful leaflet, Convincing Arguments for the UK Hospitality Industry, in which it argues:

"As one of the world's leading capital cities, London lacks a world-class congress centre which is able to attract the largest international conferences. Such a centre is regarded as a fundamental element in the UK's business tourism strategy and represents a key initiative in developing the industry's full job- and wealth-creating potential. Government support is required to help plan, locate and pump-prime this essential development for the 21st century."

Do the Government agree with that analysis? If so, what measures do they believe should be taken by them and the GLA—the mayor and the authority combined—to create a world-class congress centre in London?

Indeed, what action do the Government expect the GLA to take to develop facilities for the meetings and incentives industry generally? What discussions will they hold at the EU level to ensure that there is EU co-operation on this issue?

Finally, can the Minister reassure us that the Government expect that the Dome site could have long-term use for the meetings and incentives industry after the Dome itself has been hired out very profitably for corporate hospitality uses next year? I am aware that bids are in the pipeline. It would be helpful if the noble Lord could indicate whether there are one or more bids that include the conference industry. I support the amendment.

I wish to support my noble friend Lady Anelay of St Johns and to tell the Minister something that I am sure he is aware of, but which is worth placing on the record.

With regard to the need for a convention centre in London, Munich has a convention centre that holds between 15,000 and 20,000 people, and it is booked up until 2006. Without being rude to the entire German race, I think more people would prefer to have a convention in London than they might in Munich. We now have three or four convention centres in London, ranging in size from 1,500 to—pushing one's luck—7,000.

It is remarkable that in arguably the greatest city on earth we do not have a world-class convention centre. When the Minister responds and says, "I understand the wording clearly to mean that the mayor will have such powers", I hope there will be no doubt that there will be the opportunity for London to have, as quickly as possible, a world-class convention centre, because the important point about Munich, which will please the Minister and anyone who is privileged to hold the post of mayor, is that it makes a profit every single year. If one is booked until 2006, one obviously has a real chance of making a profit.

I am sorry that I was not in Geneva. I assume that the Deputy Chief Whip might have stopped me going. The same may be true of Janet Anderson in the Commons.

I am afraid that these are two of those amendments to which I shall have to give the generic answer given throughout the passage of the Bill, that lists in the Bill are exemplary, illustrative and not exclusive. We must have them sometimes in order not to be accused of being too imprecise, but we certainly do not want them to cover everything that can be thought of, for fear that something that had not been thought of during the passage of the Bill should thereby be excluded.

Having got that off my chest, let me turn to the very important subject matter of the amendments, to which we shall return in more detail when we consider Clauses 303 and 304. Tourism makes a unique contribution to the success of London. It is a very important topic, for which the mayor will naturally have important responsibilities, which are set out in those clauses and which we shall be debating later.

In this case, Amendment No. 452ZJ amplifies the reference to tourism to include visits for conferences. Of course, we agree that business tourism makes a significant contribution to the success of tourism in London, and naturally the mayor will take that into account. But there is no need to single it out in this way, because it would give the inference that other aspects of tourism are less important thereby throwing doubt on its illustrative nature.

Amendment No. 455WA proposes to insert a reference in Clause 303, which deals with the mayor's powers and duties in relation to tourism. The amendment would create an additional specific duty on the mayor to promote Greater London as a centre for the meetings and incentives industry. The mayor has a general duty to encourage people to visit Greater London. It is not limited by reference to the purpose of the visit. It will be a matter for the mayor to decide how to prioritise time and resources for the encouragement of different types of visitor. Of course, he will take into account the contribution the business sector makes to the success of tourism, and the powers given in Clause 303 are wide enough to encompass all tourism sectors.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for giving notice of her specific questions. My response is that we recognise that the meetings and incentives industry is a vital part of our highly successful business tourism industry. Together, they are estimated to contribute some £4,700 million to the UK economy. We believe that the GLA will have a significant role in promoting business tourism—for example, by encouraging commercial investors to support proposals for a new international convention centre.

The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Archer, about a larger convention centre is well taken. I do not think that he will wish to say in future that this is arguably the greatest city on earth. When he is a candidate, his spin doctors will tell him to take out the word "arguably", which comes from advertising rather than from politics.

Perhaps I may say with the greatest respect to the noble Lord that in our party we do not have spin doctors.

I am tempted! The noble Lord does not need a spin doctor; he is the most expert spin doctor I have ever encountered in my political career.

The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked about the future use of the Dome. Indeed, this is relevant to a very large convention centre. As she said, the site was the subject of a competition launched by the Government in March this year. There have been a range of interesting and imaginative suggestions. The selection of the winning bid will be a matter for Ministers, who hope to make an announcement in spring 2000. Certainly, a major convention centre must be one of the candidates for the future use of the Dome.

The noble Baroness asked me whether the mayor will have the powers to promote business tourism at the European level and to take part in any European co-operation. The answer is that certainly he has those powers. I am sure that he will wish to take advantage of any opportunities at the European level as well as at the national level.

I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, will feel able to withdraw her amendment

I note the noble Lord's reluctance to acid to the list in Clause 301. Would it not be wise to add conferences to that list? The Minister might well consider that before turning down the idea. Tourism does not necessarily bring to mind the large conference industry which we have discussed. What has been said is extremely important for London.

I assure the noble Baroness that tourism embraces conferences. All definitions of tourism that we use, both for national and local government, include the conference business; and very important it is, too.

I understood the Minister to give the confirmation that I sought: that tourism included conferences. I believe he said that we sought to amplify the term. That satisfies us entirely.

This is not a list like some other lists. Clause 301(5) contains all the matters which may be included in the culture strategy. It does not have a general provision, for instance, for subjects which the culture strategy group the mayor or the assembly consider should be included. That is why the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and I have been concerned to ensure that the terms are precise.

Clause 301(5) states:

"The policies that may be contained in the culture strategy include policies with respect to each of the following matters".

In other words, they do not exclude others.

I am glad to know that. References to some lists have made clear that there would be a distinct frown on the face of central government if other items were included. I am grateful for the Minister's explanations. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 452J:

Amendment No. 452K refers to parks, landscapes and gardens which we on these Benches would like to see referred to on the face of the Bill as part of the cultural strategy.

It may have been in the minds of the draftsmen that in some way ancient monuments and sites covered some of the points. I shall mention them briefly with some apprehension, bearing in mind the earlier strictures of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour. Landscapes, parks and gardens in London are one of the main attractions. They are unique in any capital city. They are more than just places where one walks one's dog, jogs or rollerblades. In London, they have a cultural and historic importance, probably unparalleled in most other cities of Europe. It may well be the wish and the intention of the mayor and his assembly to make certain provisions in the strategy for the future planning of these parks and gardens. Many of the historical parks, most notably Vauxhall Gardens and Ranelagh Gardens, played a very important part in 18th century history. I am not quite sure when Vauxhall Gardens, which had a somewhat louche reputation, disappeared and I am not quite sure what kind of activities take place there today. Again, that may be something which the mayor and the assembly might like to consider. This reinforces my point that surely these places ought to be on the list of important areas within the scope of the cultural strategy. I and my colleagues would like to see this added to the list.

I should like to say briefly that London is justly famed for its parks, commons, gardens and heaths—over 250 of them—and as things stand many of them cross London borough boundaries and get short shrift from the boroughs which may feel not wholly responsible for them. Also, many of them are in complex forms of ownership and they need explicit inclusion in the work to be done by the group.

The issue of open spaces, rights of way and so on covered by these amendments would modify Clauses 301 and 302. I recognise that the existence of parks, open spaces and other recreational areas in London is a very important part of London life. These places are essential to our urban landscapes and to some extent they define London itself, as well as providing historically, and possibly occasionally today, a broadening of experience and taste, to which the noble Viscount referred in relation to Vauxhall Gardens. I think we are all aware of the history and the current value of these open spaces.

Regarding rights of way, the Government will be bringing forward legislation for London and the rest of the country. We strongly recognise the value of rural open space and access to it. That will certainly be a matter of concern to the mayor also. However, the amendments themselves are unnecessary, in my submission, mainly for the same reasons to which my noble friend Lord McIntosh referred just now. Once or twice on earlier occasions I have indicated that the lists in this Bill in most cases are exemplary and not exhaustive. The more comprehensive and exemplary the list becomes, the greater the danger it runs of being regarded as exhaustive. We want to have a certain amount of freedom for the mayor and this group as they develop the cultural strategy.

On Amendments Nos. 452J and 452K, they would add further activities to the list of open spaces, outdoor recreation parks, landscapes and gardens. I am completely sympathetic to the intention behind the amendments, but the mayor must be able to develop policy for the development of open space in important aspects, not only in regard to the cultural strategy but also for the spatial development strategy. That does not mean it should be set in this list of the cultural strategy as such. It may well be appropriate to do so, but the mayor does not require this amendment to achieve that.

In addition, the spatial development strategy provides a context for the mayor to develop policy for the promotion of access to open spaces and other similar facilities. That is already covered in the Bill. Amendment No. 454 would enable the authority to pay grants or to provide improved public access to open space, the Thames and other waterways and rights of way in or adjacent to London. Again that amendment is unnecessary. Your Lordships will recall from our earlier debates on Clause 25 that the authority, acting through the mayor, will have a general power to do anything which it considers would further one or more of the authority's principal purposes, including the promotion of social development and promotion of the improvement of the environment in Greater London. Both of these are of direct relevance to the provision of open spaces and therefore to the provision of grants for open spaces. Therefore, if the authority judges that expenditure would meet one of those purposes, it could already act.

There is a caveat here. We have made it clear that the general power is not to be used to duplicate the role of the London borough councils or other public bodies. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, is correct in saying that some of the open spaces are in complex ownership. The vast majority are run either by London boroughs, the City of London or the Royal Parks Agency. The sponsoring departments are different, but they have those as well. The role of the London boroughs and other public bodies which have responsibility for parks and open spaces should be respected, and the GLA would not act in those areas. However, where the GLA can usefully act is on the co-ordination of joint initiatives by agreement with other local authorities and public bodies. Without this amendment, it will certainly be able to do so.

Another point concerning Amendment No. 454A is that it refers to areas adjacent to Greater London. As I have said, the power of local authorities is exercisable only in relation to the promotion of their principal purposes, specifically to Greater London itself. The authority would therefore have to demonstrate that any action outside Greater London was intended to further its principal purposes. In practice, it could do so only with the agreement of adjacent areas, and that is something which is not covered by this clause.

Nevertheless, I recognise the importance of open spaces. I believe that all the powers these amendments would convey are already in the Bill, as is the ability to cover these aspects in the cultural strategy, which is clearly there. I hope that these amendments will not be pressed.

I should like to ask just one question, but I cannot help reflecting aloud on the vision which is conjured up, following my noble friend Lord Falkland having said what he did about Vauxhall Gardens, that the mayor might also have some responsibility for Soho, since Vauxhall Gardens does not fulfil its original function. He also talked about open spaces being places where roller-blading is done. I think he meant that in a general sense and I am sure that he did not mean to talk about your Lordships roller-blading. But it does conjure up a nice picture.

I should like to ask about the Royal parks, which the Minister has just mentioned. Their management is a separate matter because they are under a distinct ownership, but I am conscious of the work which is done by groups of friends in respect of the different parks. I do not recall the full title, but there is a federation of the groups of friends. Are they a matter to which the cultural strategy group would have regard" I appreciate that there will be no power of direction either on their part or on that of the mayor with regard to their management, but I am unclear as to how they fit into the general scheme of things.

The Royal parks are administered by the Royal Parks Agency, which is an agency of the DCMS. That is where the powers arise: they are basically the agency's powers. There are different situations, in so far as London boroughs own many open spaces. In other cases open spaces are owned by trusts or the Corporation of London, but so far as Royal parks specifically are concerned, they are run by the agency.

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this small debate about open spaces and recreation. I note the comments of the Minister that the Government do not believe these amendments are necessary because, hey presto, it will all be done anyway since there is some provision somewhere which allows the mayor and the authority to do in effect more or less anything they like. But there is concern on these Benches that one needs to be able to probe more carefully into what powers they will actually have, how they will be carried out and what activities may be covered.

I believe that there are some activities which are so important to the future of London that they will need to be included on the face of the Bill. But I am pleased to have the reassurances given by the Minister with regard to these amendments. One will need to read carefully in Hansard what has been said and consider other matters between now and Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 452J.

moved Amendment No. 452JA:

I want to speak to Amendment No. 453, which deals with a different subject from that addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede. It relates to the subject of archives. I must declare an interest in that I have been involved in archives for about 30 years.

The purpose of this short and simple amendment is to ensure that archive services have a firm place in the mayor's cultural strategy. As presently constituted, Clause 301 recognises library and museum services as an essential part of the mayor's cultural strategy, but says nothing about archives. We are all aware of the great importance of libraries and museums, but the value of the library book and the museum exhibit depends firmly on the research which is possible only through a ready access to original historical records. Archives are less visible and obvious to the wider public than libraries or museums, but that belies their fundamental importance to well based historical research.

Indeed, at this very time the national curriculum is placing considerable emphasis on the hands-on use by school students of primary source material. Yet the availability of material at local level across the London boroughs varies from the well resourced and well managed, through the under-resourced but reasonably well managed, to the absolutely pitiful and virtually non-existent.

The situation in London is that there is one very good overall London archive repository, the equivalent of the county record office, in the London Metropolitan Archives, formerly known as the Greater London Record Office. It has been run by the Corporation of London since 1986 and provides a good service as well as original archives in the Guildhall Library. The London Metropolitan Archives perform the important function of looking after the records of London-wide government bodies such as the London County Council and the Greater London Council as well as manorial and ecclesiastical records and the records of important London institutions and sometimes private companies.

However, it is totally impossible for the London Metropolitan Archives to meet all of London's archive needs, especially at local level. It is not resourced to do so and would not regard it as being within its remit. The preservation and accessibility of local records is the responsibility of the London boroughs. Under the Local Government Act 1972, each London borough is statutorily responsible for its own records, but these duties are expressed in very general terms and in effect allow the extent of the duty to be defined by the authority concerned. In addition, under the Local Government (Records) Act 1962, all London authorities are empowered to make provision for archives and create local history collections, but the legislation is only permissive.

The inadequacy of the statutory provision is one of the main reasons why standards vary so much over the London boroughs. Of the 33 London local authorities, more than one-third have no professional archivist. That fact in itself speaks volumes. Some boroughs do not even make provision for access to the archives created by the local authority itself, much less make provision to take in and make accessible the records of local institutions, businesses and individuals. Organisations creating historic records of local significance experience considerable difficulty in seeking to deposit records in London, as some boroughs are unable to receive collections of important archive material.

In those authorities which choose to take an active role both in the care of their own archives and the provision of centres for local studies, these facilities are much used and appreciated by local people. Even then, they are frequently under-resourced and even those authorities which provide a relatively good service are closed on some days of the week.

What London needs is an even standard provision of archive services across the metropolis. To meet the standards laid down by the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts for the storage and custody of records, access to them and reasonable opening hours does not entail any great expense.

The mayor, in publishing and implementing his or her strategy, will be uniquely well placed to take the lead in stimulating and encouraging those boroughs which are responding to the challenge of providing a suitable archive service, co-ordinating borough services, encouraging the development of centres of excellence and naming and shaming those who lag behind the rest. The proposed short amendment will mean that archives cannot be swept under the strategy carpet, and its general terms means that the mayor's strategy could take account of archives in the private as well as the local government sector.

Some 19 years ago, I proposed an amendment in your Lordships' House to the then National Heritage Bill to add "record repositories" to museums and galleries as eligible recipients for grants. I was told by the spokesman for the government of the day, who was none other than my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton, that archives and record offices were covered by the phrase "other similar institutions" and that it was unnecessary and undesirable to add further to the list of institutions specifically mentioned.

It was therefore with some amusement that I noted the response of a Minister of the present Government, Mr Nick Raynsford, to an amendment similar to the one I am proposing today, which was moved during the Committee stage of the present Bill in the other place by my right honourable friend Mr Peter Brooke who, as your Lordships will know is the Member for the City of London and Westminster and who made a most interesting and comprehensive speech which I recommend to those who wish to extend their knowledge of the subject. In rejecting the amendment, the Minister cautioned about adding to a list which, he said, was in any case meant to be illustrative. He said:

"Once we go beyond an illustrative list and start adding other items, there will be no limit on how many others can legitimately claim to he included.".

In other words, the floodgates will be opened. Quite how the addition of archives will open the floodgates when museums and galleries, library services and even treasure and antiquities of a movable nature are specifically mentioned seems to be curious, to say the least.

I was even more amused to notice that immediately after the exchange over this amendment in Committee, another Minister, Miss Glenda Jackson, moved, as an addition to the Bill, the present Clause 302 which states that the new authority may pay grants for the purposes of any museum, gallery, library, archive or other cultural institution. I cannot understand why it should be necessary to single out archives in this clause but not in the previous clause.

However, I ask the Minister to consider that by accepting the amendment he would be advancing the Government's policy as recently announced in A New Cultural Framework issued by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. That publication recognises the importance of archives alongside the libraries and museums in the decision to create the museums, libraries and archives council in the planned regional consortia.

I wish to speak to Amendment No. 453 concerning archives, which I very much support, although I have sympathy with the other amendments in the group.

The Minister said that lists are intended to be illustrative and not inclusive. However., I have to say that I find that rather ingenuous. Any list will inevitably highlight what is listed and will do so at the expense of what is not.

The London Archive Users Forum states:

"despite improvements in recent years …there is widespread neglect of archives at borough level".

So, as well as the question of profile, there are real practical problems which a cultural strategy group should be addressing.

A point worth mentioning concerns specialist archives such as film archives. There are significant film archives at Southwark and Bermondsey. One of the functions which the National Film Archive at the BFI has taken on is to help place archives within the regions, as regions have become more conscious of and interested in their own history. I do not think that archives in general fit into the list in subsection (5). One certainly would not automatically think of film archives. One might if archives were separately listed. Many perceive cine film as representing the most significant documentation of the 20th century.

My other point concerns access. If the Government are serious about access to museums, they should also think in terms of raising the profile of activities which have traditionally been considered "backroom activities", such as archival research, whether carried out by museum staff or members of the public. The British Museum, for example, has an important archive department.

The Minister may well point out that archives such as those are covered by museums, but that is the point. They are covered; that is, hidden. The question of relationship between access and profile is an important one which in itself justifies the separate listing of archives.

From what has been said by the Government Front Bench so far, it will be difficult for the mayor to exceed his powers as the Bill is so widely drawn with so little detail in that respect. On the other hand, there are some areas where it is important to be more precise. The House, when it meets on Report, might well want to add to Clause 301(5) because that is necessary.

As regards archives, I suggest that they are not like any other contents of museums. Many archives are carefully kept in special places under special conditions. Any vagueness as to where they are may mean that they will disappear, or disappear from view. It is crucial that the Bill should be clear about what the mayor can do in that respect and, if necessary, what he cannot do about archives which are elsewhere within the city.

I should like to speak to the two other amendments in this group, Amendments Nos. 453ZA and 453A. Amendment No. 453A, to some extent, reflects the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, on which I shall comment shortly.

Amendment No. 453ZA would seek to add music to the list of those cultural activities in respect of which the cultural strategy group is empowered to develop policies. Like other noble Lords, I have listened several times to the Government's approach to any "tampering", as they appear to see it, with the magnificent list of arts and cultural activities in Clause 301(5). As a lawyer, I am deeply unimpressed. In modern psychological jargon, there is a degree of "anal retentiveness" on the part of the Government about their wording.

As the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, demonstrated, to exclude archives but allow treasure and antiquities seems unnecessary. One could select other bizarre items listed in subsection (5). However, to exclude music, of which there is no mention, and to refer only to arts seems also to be unnecessary. One has to ask why the Government are being so extraordinarily unmoving about this.

In the view of these Benches, music is naturally put alongside broadcasting and film in subsection (g). It is one of the principal activities of the arts community in London. Forty per cent of all musicians in the British Isles reside in London. London is the music capital of the world for disks, tapes and videos. It is an extraordinarily vibrant, diverse industry. We simply ask, therefore, as regards Amendment No. 435ZA, that music should be admitted to subsection (g).

Amendment No. 453A would specifically empower the cultural strategy group to have education as one of its principal areas of concern in policy development. I am sure that we all agree that the vibrant state of London arts is dependent in the long term upon educating the public to appreciate the full range of those artistic endeavours. Some parts of the London arts scene are not too healthy at present and could do with imaginative, public artistic education. On those grounds, we hope that the Government will smile sympathetically on both the amendments.

I should like to speak in support of Amendment No. 453, to which I put my name. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Teviot for speaking to it so expertly. It was grouped with other amendments, so it was the proper place to speak to it. I know that he was trying to save the time of the House in obliging them with this grouping. I appreciate, therefore, that the Minister has had to get his mind round rather a large number of subjects on the little list that we want to make a little less little.

I do not think I can add to the arguments so forcefully and expertly put forward by my noble friend. I should simply like to add my own personal feeling about archives and their importance from the point of view of somebody who at one time taught history and perhaps did not quite appreciate the value of local archives as effectively as I should, though I had access to national ones at the time.

I should like to thank my own county archivist, David Robinson, for having my mind opened. He gave up a couple of hours of his time to show me both behind and in front of the scenes in my own local archive centre. In the public mind, archives are a dusty collection of old papers. Old they may be; sometimes they are papers, but dusty they are not because of the great care taken to preserve them. I believe that the use of such archives can unlock for the readers of tomorrow the history of today and yesterday. They are certainly vital to our culture. My noble friend pointed out that at the moment there is a great disparity in the provision of services throughout London. I believe that his amendment—should we return to it at a later stage, if not today—is indeed vital for the face of the Bill.

I am afraid that we are on lists again and our view is that the lists are reasonably succinct and adequately illustrative. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, accused us of being "anally retentive". When the Bill first came out and people saw the size of it, we were accused of a rather different and opposite medical condition.

I must say that that is not typical of the rest of the Bill.

I shall not repeat the arguments about exemplary and exhaustive lists. In relation to the noble Lord's amendment concerning music, clearly any definition of the arts which is listed cannot possibly exclude music. That probably also applies to a number of the other amendments. Amendment No. 452JA, which deals with education promotion in so far as it leads to the promotion of artistic creativity, and Amendment No. 453A, which deals with educating the public in the matters listed in the cultural strategy, raise slightly different issues. They stray in part into areas which are the responsibility of other public authorities.

Nevertheless, it is clear that the cultural strategy must and can include both the sort of outreach activities referred to by my noble friend Lord Ponsonby and the rather broader term of public education in the arts referred to here. It is clear that those are already covered by the mayor's ability to draw up the strategy and to make it deliverable.

The position in relation to archives is slightly different. They are arguably part of museums, which are referred to, but they raise rather different issues. I agree in part with the noble Lord, Lord Teviot. The Government are actively engaged in raising the profile of archives through the forthcoming establishment of the museums, libraries and archives council. It is clear that that means archives of all forms—film and electronic as well as paper archives. In London there are many valuable archive collections of all sorts. The GLA and the functional bodies are also responsible for preserving their own archives. Many other public bodies also have that responsibility.

As the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, himself pointed out, the support for archives is referred to in Clause 302 with an explicit reference to the powers of the authorities to give grants in relation to archives. I recognise the strength of noble Lords' views on archives. I believe that it is slightly different from the attempt to draw up a totally exhaustive list which mentions each of the arts in some detail. If the Committee will permit, I shall look again at the question of whether we have said enough about archives on the face of the Bill, taking into account what the noble Lord said in speaking to his amendment. I should argue again that the other amendments should not be pressed. We are again in an area where an exhaustive list could constrain, rather than enhance, the creativity of the cultural strategy.

I thank the Minister for his comments. He made the point that there was no necessity to refer to film, because it was covered by the word "arts". Yet paragraph (g) refers to film. It refers to broadcasting and film. My proposal was to add "music" to those two live, electronic—as they largely are—arts. The linkage seems entirely natural. Will the Minister explain why he sees no relevance to the amendment?

I did not say that I saw no relevance. I did not specifically refer to film. I referred to music, which is clearly subsumed within the term "arts". The reference to film production is of course slightly different—

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but he quite specifically referred to film. If he looks at the record tomorrow, he will see that he did so.

We shall no doubt both check Hansard tomorrow on that point. I believe that we are all agreed that music, and indeed, film, are subsumed under "arts". Some of the other aspects have been referred to because there is an industry in terms of film production, which is slightly separate from music. I suppose that we could argue frequently on the head of a pin as to where one definition ends and another begins. Nevertheless, it is quite clear that it is possible for the mayor to engage with all the issues raised in this debate and it is almost inevitable that the cultural group would engage in drawing up the strategy.

As I have said, archives are in a slightly different category, but there is no inhibition against the strategy covering a major substrategy relating to archives. I shall take away that particular matter. However, whether or not Hansard makes it absolutely clear, I hope that noble Lords will accept that the list includes all their anxieties.

I am terribly sorry to tax the Committee's patience, but I should like to ask one more question. The Minister said that film production was one thing, but music production another. I do not see the distinction. That is to say, music production is a distinct and hugely important part of London arts. Why should film production be specifically mentioned and not music production?

Film production is a whole and total industry. Music is a much wider entity than the industry. Music can be individual music, produced music, electronic music. Film production is a rather specific and economically quite significant industry. Music subsumes the music industry in the sense to which the noble Lord refers, but it is also a much wider artistic endeavour. Nevertheless, it is subsumed under the general title, "arts". That will have to do for now.

I was quite happy with my noble friend's response as regards educational outreach activities. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, is not happy, but I believe that the Minister has made one man in the arts very happy tonight—that is, the noble Lord, Lord Teviot. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 453H:

I am not going to accept this amendment, but I love it. It is so much in line with the way in which we have been talking about the arts for the past two years; with the way in which Chris Smith, Mark Fisher and Alan Howarth have been talking about the arts. I do not want it in legislation, but I want to acknowledge the wisdom of the thinking behind it.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, that this case is rather different from the ordinary "list adding" argument we have heard in the past, because the arts are already explicitly listed in the Bill. Amendment No. 453H expands that simple one-word reference to provide a fascinating definition of the arts but one which it is not necessary to include in the proposed legislation. It would cover all performing arts, applied arts, fine arts, other visual, audio, oral and plastic arts. It would spell out the policies that may extend to the commercial, subsidised and voluntary sectors.

Chris Smith, the Secretary of State, made a keynote address recently to the Royal Society of Arts in which he re-emphasised his own passion for the arts in the widest sense. They matter for their own and our sakes because they help to shape and characterise society. As he said, they are a civilising influence. It is of the greatest importance that they should be accessible to all. Of course, that implies that we should be covering the commercial, subsidised and voluntary sectors.

The fundamental purpose behind this Government's arts policy is to make the best things in life available to the greatest number. Our approach is therefore one of passionate commitment to the arts with a determination to ensure that they are well managed. I am sure that the mayor will want to seize these opportunities. That is what the Bill provides for him. The arts will provide the opportunity to celebrate the cultural diversity of the City in many ways. But we should not be getting into a lengthy debate over the relative merits of the categories of art defined in this amendment—I am not accusing the noble Lord of making a lengthy speech.

There is also a danger that by trying to introduce so specific a definition, some art forms might be excluded. It is the old problem. In my judgment we have gone almost too far in our lists and have run the risk of the criticism that if we include something like "treasure", why do we not have a wider definition of "the arts?" Why do we not have a wider definition of "tourism?" Why do we not have a wider definition of "sport?" Why do we not go into more and more detail? But we cannot rival the Oxford English Dictionary. In expressing my enthusiasm for the widest possible definition of the arts, let me plead with the noble Lord not to try and put it on the face of the Bill.

I am not assuaged by the eloquent defence of the policy of the Government on this matter. I wonder why the Government will not put certain matters beyond doubt. If they were on the face of the Bill, they would be beyond doubt. Since the clause is couched in non-exclusive language, I do not accept his argument. But follow it I must, and therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 454: