4 p.m.
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—( Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Lyell) in the Chair.]
Clause 300 [ The Cultural Strategy Group for London]:
had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 452ZAB:
Page 158, line 18, leave out subsection (3)
The noble Baroness said: This is a paving amendment for a later debate on Schedule 25 stand part of the Bill. It may be convenient for the Committee if I do not move the amendment at this stage.
[ Amendment No. 452ZAB not moved.]
Clause 300 agreed to.
Schedule 25 [ The Cultural Strategy Group for London]:
moved Amendment No. 452A:
Page 316, line 16, leave out from ("or) to end of line 18 and insert ("an even number of members numbering between 12 and 18.
() Half plus one of the members shall be appointed by bodies concerned with such relevant matters as the Mayor and Assembly, acting together, consider appropriate.
() The remaining members shall be appointed by the Mayor.")
The noble Baroness said: I cannot promise to be quite so brief in speaking to this amendment. I apologise for not moving the previous amendment, but I took advice on the matter from the Clerk beforehand and I warned the Front Benches that I would be following that procedure.
In moving Amendment No. 452A, and with the leave of the Committee, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 452B, 452C, 452D, 452E, 452F and 452G, which stand in my name, and to Amendments Nos. 452DB, 452DC, 452DD, 452DE and 453BA, 453G and 455QJA, all in the name of my noble friend Lady Miller of Hendon. She has expressly asked me to speak to them for her.
In the light of that list, it is no wonder that a rumour went round Hansard that I was to speak for 60 minutes. I promise I shall not. If I had done so, before I had finished I am sure noble Lords would have thrown me in the Thames, a fate that I would have deserved.
I have tabled these amendments, relating to the composition and function of the cultural strategy group, in order to probe the Government's intentions behind the creation of that body. I want to find out their expectations of its role and of its relationship with the mayor and the authority. As the Bill stands, it is so vague about such matters that one feels as though one is looking at the Cheshire Cat and that the Government are smiling with satisfaction at leaving us in the dark, with nothing of substance to see.
Amendment No. 452A provides that, while the strategy group should still be under the mayor's guidance—as the Bill provides—the mayor should give at least half of the places plus one to bodies that he or she considers it relevant to consult, and for them to make the appointments. I say "he or she" as there is at least one female candidate and there may be more. In that way the person whom the relevant body—rather than the mayor—considers appropriate will be a member of the group.
The mayor will still be left with the freedom to appoint almost half the members by personal choice alone. That surely should be sufficient for anybody. It is important that the expert bodies should have the opportunity to make appointments of those whom they know to be the right people to advise the mayor and that such experts should be in the majority.
Turning to the other amendments standing in my name, Amendment No. 452B makes it a requirement that the membership of the cultural strategy group shall include those who represent relevant tourism bodies, including the London Tourist Board. Can the Minister reassure me that tourism bodies must be represented on the group, and that, at the very least, the London Tourist Board should have a representative on it?
I make no allegations about any of the candidates currently willing to stand for election, but we do not know what they will be like when in office. They could be completely "off-the-wall". There may be an undeclared candidate whom we have not yet seen who is a most extraordinary person. There may be a peculiar clash of personalities. I make no comment about anybody who has so far declared his or her candidacy. I am sure that they are all extremely worthy people, but there may be someone who has not yet declared his or her intention to stand who may have some extraordinary ideas.
What would happen if such a person with extraordinary ideas had a clash of personalities with those running the London Tourist Board, and he or she decided not to include a representative from this admirable organisation on the group? That would be damaging for London. I am sure that all those candidates who have declared their intention to stand would support the London Tourist Board.
Amendment No. 452C is tabled because I believe that it would be appropriate for the group to choose the chairman, rather than the mayor making the appointment as a personal choice. Amendment No. 452D is consequential to Amendment No. 452C.
Amendment No. 452E restricts the length of time that anybody can serve on the group to a maximum of eight years. I have no special attachment to the period of eight years. I simply plucked the figure out of the air. The objective of the amendment is simply to raise the problems which can arise when one person with unfettered powers to appoint can choose to keep his or her preferred person on the group for too long.
Such a situation may not be a case of cronyism at all, but another scenario altogether. A person who joined the group, fresh from the area in which he or she had expertise, may be left in place because of a genuine belief that he or she is an expert. Sometimes, when a person has been a member of a body for some time, he can become out of touch with the world for which he speaks, however good he is. In those circumstances, that person should be replaced, but the mayor has not done so.
Amendment No. 452F is a drafting amendment. Schedule 25 states that the mayor may pay the members of the cultural strategy group allowances in respect of travel or other expenses properly incurred by them. But they could quite properly incur expenses which have absolutely nothing to do with their work as a member of the group. There is no definition in the Bill, as far as I can see, which links the word "properly" to the
function of the group. Therefore, my amendment makes it clear that the moneys that could be claimed would be,
"in respect of travel or other expenses properly incurred by them in connection with their duties as members of the Cultural Strategy Group".
Amendment No. 452G requires that the mayor shall provide the cultural strategy group with the money towards defraying its expenses. Can the Minister say why the Bill gives the mayor only the option, and not the duty, to pay expenses? Does the Government expect the group's work to be funded by volunteers, individual donations or corporate funding? We need to probe that matter.
I now turn to the amendments that stand in the name of my noble friend Lady Miller. The first group comprises Amendments Nos. 452DB, 452DC, 452DD and 452DE. That group probes the existence or lack of constitutional checks on the cultural strategy group. Amendment No. 452DC proposes that the terms of office of members of the group should be limited to a term specified on the face of the Bill. My noble friend approaches the matter from a different angle from myself. I was concerned about people having membership for ever and ever and not performing their duties properly. My noble friend is concerned that people who are appointed should be aware of the terms of their appointment in a clear manner.
Amendment No. 452DD proposes that the mayor should have a discretionary power to intervene if any member of the strategy group is unable or unfit for any reason to discharge his or her functions.
Without these amendments, it might appear that the mayor may appoint the members for a capriciously chosen period. It is also important that any terms of appointment should be such that a member who is unable to continue with his or her work should be discharged from membership. Amendments Nos. 452DB and 452DE are consequential. This beginning to sound like a list of licence plates on cars—and it will become rather worse as we discuss later amendments.
Amendment No. 452BA relates to subsection (6) by which the mayor may give the cultural strategy group directions to formulate a strategy and a date by which the group should complete its work. This amendment inserts the word "reasonable" into the time-scale, so that when the mayor gives his or her directions to the group, the group must be given a reasonable time in which to complete its work.
Amendment No. 453G refers to the provision which sets out the manner in which the mayor may revise the cultural strategy at a time when he or she has not been asked to do so by the cultural strategy group. The amendment gives the group the power to publish any objections to the revision of the strategy if two-thirds of the group are agreed in their objections to the revision taking place. That would provide a check on the ability of the mayor to take unilateral action in altering a strategy. At least the case against his or her actions would be made public.
Finally, Amendment No. 453QJA gives the authority the power to transfer to the cultural strategy group its own functions with regard to making grants to museums, libraries, and so on, as listed in Clause 302. Again, this is a probing amendment to seek clarification about the role which the Government expect the mayor and authority to play with regard to the cultural strategy group.
Having managed to spend nine rather than 60 minutes explaining the amendments, I beg to move 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.4.15 p.m.
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.
4.30 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:
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."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.]
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.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[ Amendments Nos. 452AA to 452G not moved.]
moved Amendment: No. 452GA:
Page 317, line 9, leave out ("towards defraying") and insert ("to defray")
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting amendment, but it is not unimportant. It deals with arrangements set out in Schedule 25 for defraying the expenses of the cultural strategy group. Paragraph 7 of the schedule gives discretion to the mayor on the extent to which he may defray the expenses properly incurred by the group. It states:
"The Mayor may provide the Cultural Strategy Group for London with sums of money towards defraying expenses properly incurred".
The two words "towards defraying" clearly imply that he does not need to defray all of the expenses. Paranoia may be creeping in on these Benches, but we would like to see it stated beyond doubt. The proposed amendment will do just that. I beg to move.
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.4.45 p.m.
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.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[ Amendment No. 452H had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[ Amendment No. 452HA not moved.]
moved Amendment No. 452HB:
Page 317, line 19, at end insert—
("(3) The Cultural Strategy Group for London may establish such committee or committees comprised of such persons for such purposes and on such terms as it may determine.")
The noble Lord said: This amendment gives the cultural strategy group a clear right to establish committees,
"comprised of such persons for such purposes and on such terms as it may determine".
That is a useful and practical empowerment for which the group will be grateful. I was one of the initial appointees to the National Lottery Charities Board under not dissimilar scheduled powers. I remember that we spent a great deal of time agonising over just what we could and could not do and, on being asked for advice,
there was a huge amount of humming and hawing, thumb-sucking and reference to lawyers because it was not made clear on the face of the Bill what powers we had. The group should be given this essential practical power. I beg to move.
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.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Schedule 25 shall be agreed to?
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.
Schedule 25 agreed to.
Clause 301 [ The Mayor's culture strategy]:
[ Amendments Nos. 452TJ to 452YJ not moved.]
moved Amendment No. 452ZJ:
Page 158, line 33, after ("tourism") insert ("(including visits for conferences)")
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 455WA in this afternoon's alphabet soup. In the amendment we propose to include a specific reference to conferences after the reference to tourism, which is within the culture strategy group's remit. During the proceedings on the Bill and outside the Chamber we have talked about the mayor's role including that of being a voice for London to promote London. That is for many purposes, some of them economic. We suggest reference to London's role as a conference centre because we believe that tourism does not necessarily cover this method of attracting people to our capital city.
I have tabled the amendment in order to seek the Minister's assurance that the point is covered here or that it will come within the remit of the London Development Agency. It is not necessarily an activity that falls within the LDA's remit, which is to do with economic regeneration, so I think that the issue should be covered somewhere. I should be grateful for the Minister's comments. I beg to move.
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: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."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."
5 p.m.
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 amendmentI 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:
In other words, they do not exclude others."The policies that may be contained in the culture strategy include policies with respect to each of the following matters".
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.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.15 p.m.
moved Amendment No. 452J:
Page 158, line 33, at end insert—
("() open space and outdoor recreation;")
The noble Baroness said: We return to the subject of lists, but a somewhat different list. In moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendment No. 454A.
The purpose of the amendments is to probe the role of the Greater London Authority with regard to recreation—walking, riding, cycling and the use of open spaces for recreation in general—for innocent purposes, and recreation for everyone, whatever their individual needs may be. We may use a wheelchair; we may have difficulties with sight or hearing; but we all have need of recreation and open spaces.
I thank the Open Spaces Society and the National Playing Fields Association for their briefing. I declare a non-pecuniary interest as honorary appeal patron of the National Playing Fields Association's Millennium Appeal, called "Every child deserves a place to play"—a view with which I think no one would quarrel.
Clause 301(5) sets out certain policies to be contained in the mayor's culture strategy. In another place my honourable friend Sir Sydney Chapman asked questions on this issue. As did the Minister today, the Minister spoke of the list not intending to be perfect, full or comprehensive, but illustrative. However, it is important that we probe today the intentions of the Government with regard to the inclusion of the use of open spaces within the work of the group and the authority.
I believe that no doubt should be left by the Bill that open spaces and outdoor recreation are an important aspect of our London culture. It is vital that one notes that there is a London branch of the CPRE. When noble Lords debated the Regional Development Agencies Bill last year—the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, nods her head—we had some interesting exchanges on the role of open spaces and agriculture. The London branch of the CPRE is alive and well. It has written to several noble Lords to give information about its work. It is primarily concerned with the environmental welfare of London and its people, with the aim of making the metropolis a more agreeable place in which to live and work. It points out that the proper and sympathetic management of London's great wealth of public parks and commons is vital to achieve its objective.
The Open Spaces Society points out that there is a crisis in the management of London parks. It directed my attention to evidence by the Institute of Leisure and Amenity Management to the DETR Select Committee which recently started an inquiry into local authority town and country parks. Paragraph 24 of the evidence to that inquiry states:
"ILAM's greatest concern is the lack of support from Government itself. In the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport there are two Govemment Departments who appear to believe, perhaps because public parks have both an environmental and cultural dimension, that parks should be the province of neither Department rather than both".
It seems that they fall through the middle. Paragraph 28 states:
"The DCMS does not appear to recognise any responsibility for public parks, either as leisure, culture, heritage or as a tourist attraction, all of which are the remit of the Department…In providing guidance to Local Authorities for 'Local Cultural Strategies' the Department has conceded that public parks and countryside should be included but gives no specific advice".
What is the Government's intention with regard to parks and open places? Do they continue to have objections to the scope of this clause being made plainer; and, if so, why?
The Open Spaces Society points out that the cultural strategy group's outdoor interests should not be confined to parks or other recognised public open spaces. It points out that it is important that the group should also be concerned to protect and enhance all outdoor recreation and enjoyment, whether related to the River Thames, or any of London's other waterways and reservoirs—all of which add to the character of London life and recreation.
On Amendment No. 454A, Clause 302 enables grants to be paid by the GLA for cultural institutions. But outdoor recreational facilities may also need financial help and this should not be excluded by the Bill. Indeed, as the London Forum has pointed out in its briefing to noble Lords, outdoor recreational activities must mean sports plus other recreational activities in the widest sense, which include walking and peaceful enjoyment of the open space. We were reminded recently that inner city parks do not have to be urban wastelands or threatening places. The Urban Task Force reported earlier this month on Barcelona where parks have been a key element in bringing the city back to life. I am sure that that is a good example for all to follow. I beg to move.
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.Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.30 p.m.
moved Amendment No. 452JA:
Page 158, line 33, at end insert—
("() education as it relates to the promotion of artistic creativity;")
The noble Lord said: The amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 453, 453ZA and 453A. In anticipation of my noble friend's reply, I "got the message" from the previous debates that lists are exemplary, illustrative but not exclusive. I understand the point.
The purpose of moving the amendment is to draw attention to the importance of educational outreach activities; that is, bringing arts into local communities and institutions, including schools in particular. It is recognised that in recent years the arts have made a substantial contribution to the health and creativity of the capital through the involvement of professional artists within the community at all levels and in a wide variety of environments. One example in the City of London is the outreach activities undertaken by the Guildhall School of Music and Drama. They involve both staff and students in projects in local communities of east London as well as in more than 30 schools.
As regards broader community projects, it is worth recording that outreach activities extend to community centres, hospitals, hospices and even to prisons. Recognising the importance of such activities and the anticipated co-ordinating role of the cultural strategy group, it seems to me to be appropriate that reference is made to such activities and that they would fall into the responsibility of the cultural strategy group. I beg to move.
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: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."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.".
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: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."despite improvements in recent years …there is widespread neglect of archives at borough level".
5.45 p.m.
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.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[ Amendments Nos. 452K to 453C not moved.]
[ Amendment No. 453D had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[ Amendments Nos. 453E to 453G not moved.]
moved Amendment No. 453H:
Page 159, line 17, at end insert—
("(9) In this section, reference to the arts shall include all performing arts, applied arts, fine arts, and other visual, aural and plastic arts, and the policies that may be contained in the culture strategy may extend to the commercial, subsidised and voluntary sectors.")
The noble Lord said: I am afraid that we are back to the age-old subject of lists. I feel slightly more reinforced in pressing the amendment, given the backing of my noble friend Viscount Falkland, and the noble Lords, Lord Puttnam, and Lord Bragg, who know what they are talking about. The idea of adding subsection (9) to Clause 301 is, in a way, to sweep up a great many of the reservations and unhappiness which many Members have expressed both here and in the other place as to the wording of Clause 301, in particular that of subsection (5).
I put it to the Government that it cannot be right to rest on the two words "the arts" the huge corpus of activity which they say is or may be embraced within it with no attempt at clarification—not even open-ended clarification which this amendment would provide. The amendment does not pretend to be exhaustive; it simply says that arts in this section "shall include." I urge the Government to examine the matter with great care; otherwise some of the examples of arts specifically referred to in Amendment No. 453H will be the subject of doubt on the part of the cultural strategy group as to whether or not it is empowered to make policies with regard to them.
My other point is that the amendment expressly makes clear that which is not clear at the moment; that is, that the policies which the cultural strategy group may develop may extend,
"to the commercial, subsidised and voluntary sectors".
The importance of that, for which the noble Lords, Lord Puttnam and Lord Bragg, if they were here, would vouch, is that it is essential that the policies to he developed should be able to embrace the whole of the London arts scene, from whichever part of the spectrum it comes. The fact that it may devote most of its attention to the subsidised theatre, for example, or in another part of the arts spectrum, the voluntary sector, is neither here nor there. We on these Benches feel that it should be plain that the group has the power to look right across the arts board and develop policies it feels are in the interests of London and Londoners covering; all parts of that spectrum.
Despite what has been said, therefore, about specific additions to subsection (5) thus far, this is a slightly different approach to the unease expressed by many Members of the Committee. I hope therefore that the Government will accept the amendment. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
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.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 301 agreed to.
moved Amendment No. 454:
After Clause 301, insert the following new clause—
Implementation Of Culture Strategy
(" . The Secretary of State shall by order transfer to the Authority his responsibility for London museums and historic properties in the Authority's area.")
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 454 is a probing amendment and is only intended as a means of asking the Government about their plans for London museums under the new GLA.
In the White Paper of March 1998 the Government proposed,
"a more radical approach with regard to the Mayor's relationships with other bodies and organisations".
Since then there has been no further indication of any rearrangement envisaged by the Government with regard to the capital's museums and galleries, nor of what powers the mayor will have over them. Perhaps the Minister can give us an update and tell us along what lines his department has been thinking.
In particular, I shall be grateful if the Minister can let us know what has become of the proposal to transfer responsibility for museums such as the Geffrye Museum, the Horniman Museum and the Museum of London from the DCMS to the GLA. The Geffrye and the Horniman, though both formerly under GLC control, have adapted extremely well to being part of a wider museum umbrella under the DCMS with all the back-up and resources that that involves. There have been rumours that there are proposals for the mayor to have the powers to nominate two trustees for those museums. Is that true? If so, can the Minister give us more details? What will the benefits be?
Furthermore, are there any other plans which might affect the funding of those museums? There will inevitably he serious anxieties if any core funding were to be split between the DCMS and the GLA. Can the Minister reassure us that the museums' funding will be secure, if necessary by some form of ring-fencing within the GLA budget, and will not be gradually whittled away by other demands? The DCMS has all the mechanism and experience necessary to run important national resources. Is it wise to contemplate handing any of its powers over to a body whose composition is as yet unknown and which has no proven track record? Why change a structure and a system that works well for an unknown quantity just for the sake of it? There must be a greater benefit than merely providing the mayor with some museum as part of his or her responsibility. It seems essential that the cultural sector of the GLA should complement rather than duplicate the grant-giving powers of the current cultural funding agencies. In such circumstances it would be of real value.
Can the Minister also inform the Committee as to whether or not there are any plans with regard to the Theatre Museum, the Museum of Childhood, the Sir John Soanes Museum or any other museum? If in the end a small number of museums come under the GLA's aegis, will the Minister be able to put in place a mechanism to ensure that the GLA will not be able to manipulate them, either through funding or direct intervention by trustees, in order to make political points? Also touched on in the White Paper was the possible transfer to the GLA of historic properties now managed by English Heritage. Could the Minister comment on whether this suggestion is still being considered? I beg to move.
In speaking to Amendment No. 454, I wish also to speak to Amendments Nos. 454XA and 455QJB which are tabled in my name. I very much support the probing intentions behind the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Freyberg and hope that the Minister feels able to give us a fully informative answer. The intention of the amendments that I have tabled, taken together, is to provide a safeguard—I stress that it would be a safeguard and not a prediction—to prevent the kind of crisis that occurred last year from happening again; in particular, what was suggested in terms of moving the responsibility for funding certain museums over to the authority.
It is important that such proposals should not be made lightly. It is important as well—indeed for all of us—to understand in a sensitive manner the very different characters and lines of development of the various institutions: for instance, developments variously in local, national and international terms, clearly part of the agenda of some museums. These agendas need to be encouraged in the right kind of way. One of the things that has become clear is the great importance that certain museums attach to the superstructure that the department affords. It is not just a matter, as I am sure the Minister appreciates, of a hopefully secure a funding base but also expertise in terms of access, education, national and international links and in many other areas—and it ought to be said that in this regard the department is clearly getting a big pat on the back from the museums. My understanding is that no museum wants to rule out any possibility for the future. For instance, we do not know exactly how the authority will develop. But the authority, at least as it is construed at present, does not necessarily offer the best scenario for the future development of certain institutions. In his reply, I ask the Minister to confirm that there would be proper, up-front consultation and discussion over such proposals if they came forward again—consultation which in a sense is not locked into or in effect hidden away within a separate agenda.When I read through this amendment, I thought that I was quite opposed to it or, indeed, worried by it. It seemed to me that it was suggesting that this responsibility should be transferred to the authority. However, when I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, his speech appeared to be contrary to what is in the amendment. Therefore, I like what the noble Lord said but I do not like the wording of the amendment.
I would be very sorry to see the Horniman Museum transferred to the authority. The noble Lord quoted a number of others, but I take the Horniman as a example in this respect. It has built up a great rapport with local people, as well as gaining quite an identity as a museum and as a tourist attraction in London. Indeed, it has often been debated in this Chamber. On one occasion, my noble friend Lady Trumpington told us how she had been offered the opportunity to be weighed, against the seal or the walrus which are on show in the museum. It really is quite a famous establishment. However, I should like to feel confident that such museums will be able to carry on in the same way that they have been doing, and doing so well, over the past 10 years. I support the principle behind the noble Lord's point, but I do not know whether the wording of the amendment is what it ought to be. Therefore, I do not support the amendment.6.15 p.m.
I speak in support of Amendment No. 454, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg. I am most grateful for the intervention by my noble friend Lady Gardner because it gives me the opportunity to point out that, when the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and I first discussed this amendment, I made the point that if I attached my name to it my noble friends would think that I had lost my senses. It is a vehicle by which one can probe the Government's intentions. I am glad that my noble friend gave me the opportunity to put that on record.
I also speak in support of Amendments Nos. 454XA and 455QJB, which were spoken to by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. I am very appreciative of the cautionary words that he spoke with regard to those amendments. The purpose of this group of amendments is to ask the Government questions about their plans for museums in London. The Bill merely gives the GLA the power to pay grants to any museum. The only strings attached are that there should—quite rightly—be financial accountability for the expenditure and that one might have to pay back the whole or part of the grant. However, that is in sharp contrast to the extensive changes which were proposed in the White Paper. I was intrigued by the gulf between the proposals in the White Paper and the matters which appear on the face of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, went into some detail in that respect and I shall not attempt to repeat what he said. I merely endorse his argument and the points that he put. But I have a few questions which the noble Lord did not mention in detail. My honourable friend Peter Ainsworth tabled a Written Question in another place recently to ask the Secretary of State for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport whether he intended to transfer responsibility for any of his department's sponsored museums to the GLA. I was intrigued to note that the Written Answer, which was printed on 8th June, was given as a "holding answer 13 April 1999". I hope that the Minister can take the matter further today. The Written Answer states that it is the intention of the Secretary of State to transfer to the GLA the responsibility for making some appointments to the boards of museums which were previously funded by the GLC. The Secretary of State also said:I believe that it is important for this House to be able to debate such proposals, if there are any, at an early stage; if, indeed, they are to form part of this Bill. Obviously, another place will have no opportunity to scrutinise such proposals in Committee. Therefore, it will be our duty to do so here, if such proposals come forward. I gave advance notice to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport of the four detailed questions that I have for the Minister. First, can the noble Lord say to which museums the Government are referring in that Written Answer? I ask that because it does have a bearing on the Bill. Secondly, can the noble Lord say what number of appointments would be transferred to the GLA as a proportion of the total number at the disposal of the DCMS? Thirdly, what would be the legal basis of the transfer of the right to appoint in this Bill, and would there be other statutory powers which could quite properly be used to make such a transfer? That certainly may be the case. I simply do not know, and seek elucidation on that point. Fourthly, what "further responsibilities", to quote from the Written Answer, are the Government thinking of transferring? I am perfectly well aware that, in his characteristic way, the Minister will try to be as helpful as possible. Indeed, when responding to a Question in the House earlier this summer, he gave a fascinating reply which implied that the Government might be going down the route of "privatising"—that is the only word that I can think of—the management of national museums. It interests me to see that the Minister very vigorously shakes his head. That response is echoed in the Written Answer given in another place on 25th May. However, can the Minister say what proposals the Government have for the museums in London—and for which museums?"I am considering with colleagues the extent to which the Greater London Authority might he given further responsibilities in respect of museums and galleries in order to enhance the cultural role for the Authority".—[Official Report, Commons, 8/6/99; cols. 229–230.)
I have attached my name to this amendment. I did so because I find the concept to be very interesting. The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, who moved the amendment, stated quite clearly that it is a probing device and that he is seeking the response and the view of the Minister. The amendment appeals to us on this side of the Committee because if museums within the area of relevant responsibility of the department were transferred to the authority, they might want quickly to change their ideas about presentation. I give the example of the National Maritime Museum in Greenwich which is an extremely interesting and comprehensive museum of our maritime history. A strategic decision was taken to present that museum not just as an historical record of Britain's sea power but as a museum covering all aspects of maritime life and the sea. That decision is already starting to show great benefits.
To my mind other museums throughout the country will need to take such decisions. If the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, were accepted, these kind of strategic decisions would be easier to make and—this is probably more important—they could be made more rapidly. These are, of course, costly decisions, but I believe that the noble Lord has made a valid point.As regards what Amendment No. 454 of the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, actually says, I hope that the Government will bear in mind that London is the capital of the United Kingdom and that people throughout the whole of the United Kingdom regard many of the museums and historic properties as of enormous interest to them and as belonging to them. To go too far in the direction of giving the mayor responsibility for these things might be a bit tricky. I hope that the Government have that in mind; I feel sure that they have. However, when we discussed time zones the other day it seemed that some noble Lords had forgotten that London is the capital of the United Kingdom and that the Government have responsibility for looking after the whole of the United Kingdom and not just England or London.
I am grateful to all Members of the Committee for the genuinely probing spirit in which these amendments have been tabled. Neither of the substantive amendments defines the word "responsibility". I shall attempt a simplified definition because to give a sensible answer I suggest that responsibility can take two forms: one is funding and the other is the role in management which consists of appointments to the trustees. I shall deal with each of those as I deal with each of the institutions that I mention.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, was intrigued by the differences between the proposals in the White Paper affecting museums in London and those we are now considering. There are indeed differences but there are no sinister reasons for them; they simply reflect the more detailed consideration during the Comprehensive Spending Review which followed the publication of the White Paper. The White Paper itself made frequent reference to the fact that the review was under way and might affect the outcome, as indeed it did. In a Written Answer on 24th March—I think this is the key—Nick Raynsford, the Minister responsible for London stated,I believe that that is the basis of the answer that I want to give. The museums referred to are the Geffrye Museum, the Horniman Museum, the Museum of London, the Theatre Museum and the Bethnal Green Museum of Childhood, all of which are mentioned in the White Paper but all of which have different considerations which I have to cover. Let me deal first with the most straightforward points concerning appointments. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has indicated his intention to transfer to the mayor some of the appointments for which he is responsible on the boards of the Geffrye and Horniman Museums. We have been advised that this does not require legislation and could not in fact be implemented by legislation without the risk of making the Bill hybrid. He proposes that the mayor should be involved in one of his three Geffrye appointments and two of his four Horniman appointments. I think that answers one of the questions of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. The situation with regard to the Museum of London is more difficult. The board appointments to the Museum of London are shared between the Corporation of London and the Prime Minister. Although the Secretary of State and the Corporation of London have indicated that they are willing to transfer to the mayor responsibility for three of the corporation appointments and three of the Prime Minister's appointments, legislation is needed to give the mayor a role in appointments. However, we have been told that this would make the Bill hybrid. Therefore we shall have to consider separate legislation to achieve this change. The position with regard to the Theatre Museum and the Bethnal Green Museum of Childhood is even more difficult. These are not separate institutions but branches of the Victoria and Albert Museum. Both have a national role which goes beyond the GLA's remit. This does not mean that we shall not consider the future of these two museums, but there would be practical and policy difficulties in trying to transfer these museums to the GLA as they are not separate entities. All these museums are important to London and it is right to consider how the mayor might be involved in supporting the work they do. However, as our consideration during the Comprehensive Spending Review has shown, these amendments raise valid questions about the transfer of full responsibility, including funding, to the GLA. The Comprehensive Spending Review revealed potential problems in transferring responsibilities. In the White Paper we said that we would consider further the case for transfer of funding to the London, Geffrye and Horniman Museums. The review suggested difficulties in each case. It may be possible to meet these concerns, but it would be better to wait to decide on the scope for a transfer once the authority has been established. I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, said that the GLA was a new institution. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked about the Government's plans for the management of national museums. I do not think that I gave an unwise answer but I think that she misinterpreted me because we were certainly not talking about privatisation. At the request of the National Museums Directors' Conference, we have been looking at—and we are still looking at—how to give them greater financial and managerial autonomy. We are keen to see how this can be achieved within the current trustee and management arrangements and in the context of the modernising government initiative. Certainly that goes nowhere near the concept of privatisation. In the meantime I can assure the Committee that the Government value all these museums and we shall not take any hasty steps which could endanger the good work they do for London and the nation as a whole. I was asked about the Sir John Soane Museum. There are no proposals to alter the current status of that museum. I hope that on that basis noble Lords will not feel it necessary to press these amendments."the White Paper raised the question of future responsibility for some London museums currently directly funded by the DCMS…Following the conclusion of his departmental Comprehensive Spending Review, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport…has concluded that there should he no change at the present time to the funding arrangements for these bodies, but that the GLA's role in funding the museums should be reviewed in due course".—[Official Report, Commons, 24/3/99; col. WA 252.]
I wish to thank everyone who has spoken this evening. I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, if I created a misunderstanding as regards the intention of my amendment. The Public Bill Office advised me on tabling a suitable probing amendment. I thank the Minister for his extremely full and helpful answer. I shall clearly want to mull over this matter. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 302 [ Grants by the Mayor for museums, galleries etc.]:
[ Amendment No. 454XA not moved.]
moved Amendment No. 454YA:
Page 159, line 18, leave out ("pay grants") and insert ("grant such financial and other assistance as it thinks fit")
The noble Lord said: I speak to this amendment and to Amendment No. 454ZA. They both relate to a very important provision in the Bill which allows the authority to "pay grants"—that is the expression used—
"for the purposes of any museum, gallery, library, archive or other cultural institution".
These two amendments are designed to widen the scope of that allowance.
Amendment No. 454YA goes beyond the mere payment of grants to allow the provision of,
"such financial and other assistance as it thinks fit".
That would cover such things as loans, advice, guarantees and so on and gives the much wider possibility of meeting the needs of the cultural institution.
Amendment No. 454ZA seeks to make plain what is meant by "other cultural institutions", about which there is uncertainty at the moment. At present the only institutions mentioned are museums, galleries, libraries and archives—all non-performing institutions, if I can use that phrase. In legal interpretation there is a tendency to interpret according to the particular examples which are in a clause. The addition of theatres, cinemas, concert halls and opera houses is designed to make it absolutely clear that performing institutions are as much within the capacity of the authority to assist as the non-performing institutions.
Again, I draw the attention of the Committee to two uniquely experienced Members of the Committee—the noble Lords, Lord Bragg and Lord Puttnam—both of whom feel that this amendment is desirable and necessary. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Can the Minister confirm whether the phrase "any museum" in Clause 302, with regard to the powers of the authority to pay grants, refers to independent museums as well as those funded through the DCMS?
The answer to that point is yes.
I ask the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, to hold firmly on to his seat. I think he has a point. In Clause 303 we already use the phrase "other assistance" in relation to the power of the authority on tourism. That it should be extended to Clause 302 is an interesting suggestion. We shall have to consider the implications of the amendment, so I cannot accept it immediately, but I am grateful to the noble Lord for tabling it. I shall give it full consideration between now and Report stage. I cannot be quite so friendly to Amendment No. 454ZA. That amendment would add to the list of purposes for which the authority may pay grant. The proposed additions—theatre, concert hall, and so on—are all worthy institutions and eminently suitable. They all relate to activities and institutions which have much to offer, and are highly valued by the Government. However, the argument is still that the list is illustrative and not exhaustive. The phrase in subsection (1),is a catch-all that makes the addition unnecessary. Such institutions are all already eligible for grant. I hope that the noble Lord will not press Amendment No. 454ZA."or other cultural institution",
I am grateful to the Minister for those replies. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[ Amendments Nos. 454ZA and 454A not moved.]
moved Amendment No. 455:
Page 159, line 19, at end insert—
("() The power in subsection (1) shall be exercised so as to support the provision of central facilities to be approved by the Authority for the study and performance of music by young people with musical talent from schools in the London area.")
The noble Lord said: The purpose of Amendment No. 455 is to reinstate the core funding for the Centre for Young Musicians. Both the relevant Green Paper and the White Paper recommended that the Centre for Young Musicians should be a recipient of GLA funding.
The amendment is specifically worded to try to avoid any complications with hybridity. I am particularly grateful for the support I have received on this amendment, especially from the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, who I know has an interest in that institution.
The Centre for Young Musicians is a pan-London training provision for over 2,400 young Londoners aged between seven and 19, recruited principally from the state schools. They attend the centre regardless of their ability to pay fees. There is a 1:3 hardship factor and a 1:4 minority community representation.
The Centre for Young Musicians also produces London's youth orchestra, the London Schools' Symphony Orchestra. I shall now blow my own trumpet. Over 20 years ago, I played the trumpet in the London Schools' Symphony Orchestra for three years. With a great deal of prejudice, I can say that it is one of the finest youth orchestras in the world. It is an ambassador for London. This year it will travel to Argentina to strengthen further links between the United Kingdom and Argentina. I believe I am right to say that it is a world-renowned youth orchestra, and to have played in that orchestra is certainly my greatest ever achievement.
The Bill represents an opportunity for the centre to return to London, having been divorced from its single London authority by the abolition of the ILEA in 1990. Currently, the Government fund, through the DfEE, less than 16 per cent of the moneys raised by the centre's supporting foundation towards central organising costs. That is less than 5 per cent of the overall budget. After nine years, the foundation is experiencing genuine difficulty in finding the centre's central organising costs because of donor fatigue.
Under the White Paper, the DfEE had been recommended to transfer its role and responsibility in that regard to the GLA and we want to see that provision on the face of the Bill. I understand that it is the Government's belief that the LSSO and the CYM should be treated separately and differently from any other youth orchestra or centre for young musicians in any other metropolitan centre or county youth orchestra in Britain. It is the only youth orchestra that has to obtain its finance from the private sector. That situation is unhealthy. It is in the interests of London and the GLA that core funding, which is the most difficult funding to obtain, should be provided by the GLA.
I do not know which of my noble friends will respond, but I argue that the CYM and the LSSO are special. Some form of words needs to be found to make sure that their core funding is a direct responsibility of the GLA as that institution plays such a visible and important role in promoting London to young people, within London and abroad. I beg to move.
Amendment No. 454A also stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Newby. He is very sorry not to be present to support the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. In the briefing that was circulated, I was struck by the comment, put even more bluntly than the noble Lord has put it in talking about the core funding, that benefactors are reluctant to finance unglamorous administrative costs previously met by government. That seems to be precisely to the point. We support the amendment.
I rise briefly to support the amendment, which also stands in my name. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, has set out the case for it superbly.
I simply add a reference to a Written Answer in another place on 24th March, the day before the Committee stage in another place, that cast a little light on the gloom. There is reference in that Written Answer to,Therefore, I merely endorse questions as to when the transfer is to take place and what are the legal grounds on which the transfer may take place outwith the remit of the Bill."Specific provision is not required in the GLA Bill to achieve any transfer'".— [Official Report, Commons, 24/3/99; col. 252.]
I support the amendment. In doing so, I must declare an interest as one of the trustees of the Foundation for Young Musicians, which raises finance for the Centre for Young Musicians and for the London Schools Symphony Orchestra. We have been greatly assisted over the nine years of our existence, since the Inner London Education Authority was disbanded, by successive grants from the Department for Education and Employment and its predecessor, particularly towards the central core costs.
It is increasingly difficult to find private sponsors who are willing to support those kinds of costs. They are happy to support activities carried out by the centre and the orchestra, such as the visit to Argentina to which the noble Lord. Lord Ponsonby, referred. However, it is much more difficult to find people who are willing, year after year, to support the central core costs. The foundation of which I am a trustee is very glad to go on raising funds for the activities, but badly needs support towards those core costs. The amendment is designed to ensure that it receives that support. The activities of the centre and the London Schools Symphony Orchestra are deeply worth encouraging, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, has said. It would gladden your Lordships' hearts to go into Morley College on a Saturday and see young schoolchildren from all over London coming together to learn and practise their instruments and to play chamber music together. Some noble Lords may already have heard the London Schools Symphony Orchestra. It is one of the best youth orchestras, if not the finest, in this country and indeed the whole of Europe. Its activity is well worth supporting. It is also well worth supporting institutions which channel the talents and energies of young teenagers into this kind of social activity. The young people make music together and learn not only to perform to the best of their ability, but to do so in a social context. That in itself is an objective well worth supporting. I am happy to support the noble Lord's amendment.I, too, support the amendment moved by my noble friend. I have no interest to declare other than the fact that I have attended a number of performances by the London Schools Symphony Orchestra. I have heard the assurances that have been given in another place and have discussed the matter with a number of people. I am told that the funding arrangements may continue.
Nevertheless, the amendment proposed by my noble friend would provide considerable reassurance. Not only would it ensure the possibility of the mayor and the authority providing the necessary support to continue the excellent work that is done by the Centre for Young Musicians, but it would also provide encouragement for any similar initiatives that might be undertaken in the future.6.45 p.m.
I do not wish to take anything away from the positive comments on the Centre for Young Musicians and the orchestra; however, I find the amendment problematic. It effectively seeks to constrain the mayor's discretion to pay grants for the purposes of any museum, gallery, library, archive or any other cultural institution in the arts world in London by requiring specifically that grant is paid to support the provision of central facilities,
It is true that my honourable friend, the Minister for Transport in London, explained in another place that, despite the commitment given in the White Paper, it had become increasingly clear as the legislation was developed that it would be wrong, as well as legally difficult, to single out the Centre for Young Musicians as the only voluntary organisation that the GLA would be required to fund. The amendment attempts to arrive at the same end by introducing a category of people; namely, young people in London who study and perform music. But once again, it requires that they must, under the grant giving provision, be provided with central facilities by the GLA. The arguments against requiring the singular provision of funding for that category of people are exactly the same as those against requiring the funding of a single organisation. It is difficult to explain why that should be the only category of people that is designated on the face of the Bill. If young musicians must be funded, then why not young actors, young sportsmen, young painters, young sculptors, young architects, or indeed young carers or young gardeners? Indeed, to declare a negative interest, why should such a requirement be limited to the young? It is difficult in a general grant giving power to specify one particular category. There are many London voluntary organisations, covering every conceivable category of human interest, which provide encouragement, inspiration and training for a range of people and interests in London which, broadly speaking, could be regarded as cultural. There is no proposition that the GLA should be required to fund any of them, although many would merit funding and there are many that the GLA would wish to fund. Many are of parallel merit to the organisations that promote the interests of young musicians. The GLA will of course be able to co-operate with the responsible statutory authorities and other bodies in the co-ordination and facilitation of specialist services. We expect organisations such as the Centre for Young Musicians to fall into precisely the category of organisation that the GLA will choose to help. It is our view that that could be done either under the general powers or under the provisions of Clause 302(1) as it now stands. However, by specifying a particular group, that group is singled out and at the same time provided with a degree of preference over a whole range of other potential organisations which might legitimately have equal call. That is not to say that we are unsympathetic to the cause of the Centre for Young Musicians. It does a very good job. We are keen to encourage a close association between the centre and the GLA. As regards its funding, as my noble friend Lord Harris hinted, I am pleased to confirm that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has recently agreed to extend his department's grant to the CYM until the year 2002. He will in due course make regulations to permit him to pay grant-in-aid to the GLA, on the condition that it must be used by the GLA to provide a discretionary grant to the CYM covering the period April 2000 to April 2002. The grant will be in the region of £50,000 per annum. In continuing that assistance to the Centre for Young Musicians, our assumptions are that, by 2002, the GLA will have worked with the centre to find alternative sources of funding—some of which may come from the GLA direct in the form of a grant. That indicates our respect and the desire for continuing support that the Government wish to provide for the Centre for Young Musicians. I hope that my noble friend will not pursue the amendment. It is essential that the mayor retains a discretion to decide which categories of interest will be supported through grants. It would be wrong to place a requirement on the face of the Bill for him or her to favour any particular interests. I hope that my noble friend will accept that, where the mayor does choose to exercise his or her discretion in that way, he or she will have sufficient powers to do so under this clause and other provisions in the Bill. Therefore, the amendment is not necessary to achieve my noble friend's aim. In the meantime, I hope that the confirmation of the good news relating to the grant from the DfEE will give some comfort to those who support the Centre for Young Musicians and to noble Lords who have spoken on its behalf in this debate."for the study and performance of music by young people with musical talent from schools in the London area".
While I greatly welcome the stay of discretionary execution just outlined by the Minister, perhaps I may pick up the reference to the degree of preference. As he and all those involved in the educational sector are aware, the problem is that over the past 20 years—that indicates I am not making a political point—there has been a withdrawal from, and decline in, musical education. Through the intervention of Sir Simon Rattle and others, and with the encouragement of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State, the Government have taken action to put some vitamins back into the diet of musical education. What I believe worries the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and certainly my noble friend Lord Armstrong and others, is that here we have something that works, and to cast a blight of uncertainty over it means that it will work less well. Therefore, it is not quite as simple as an ordinary degree of preference.
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I welcome particularly the intervention of the noble Earl. My noble friend's answer disappoints me. While it is true that the extension of the grant is welcome, I do not believe that he addresses my argument; namely, that the Centre for Young Musicians and the LSSO are special organisations. As the noble Earl said, they work but will work less well because their long-term future is not secure. Having said that, I shall read my noble friend's response with care. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
moved Amendment No. 455QJ:
Page 159, line 24, after ("records") insert—
("() conditions with respect to the setting of concessionary user charges for certain categories of user;")
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 455QJ is again related to the very important provisions in Clause 302. Subsection (1) is concerned with grant-making; subsection (2) provides that any grant may be subject to conditions; and subsection (3) brings into prominence two issues that the Government believe should generally be the subject of conditions when grants are made— accounts and repayment. This amendment seeks to persuade the Government of another matter that should be given prominence when grants are made; namely, the potential benefit to London and Londoners of requiring the recipient, in appropriate cases, to make concessionary fare arrangements as the authority may specify.
The arrangements may relate to old people, disabled people or young people. Different categories may, depending on the particular grant, be relevant for the purposes of a concessionary arrangement. The amendment forces nothing on anyone but gives prominence to the potential importance of concessionary arrangements in the making of grants. We hope that the amendment will commend itself to the Government who have made plain their concern that the arts in London should be available to all. I beg to move.
I had a very simple answer to the noble Lord. It was that the mayor already had power to make such conditions for any grant that he might wish to make. If the mayor wishes to target particular categories of users to give them cheaper access to the cultural purpose in question, that is quite legitimate. That is a 100 per cent knock-down argument against the amendment. However, in moving the amendment the noble Lord referred to concessionary fares.
I apologise for that slip of the tongue.
I am much relieved and grateful. I hope that the noble Lord agrees that my original response that Clause 302 already does what he seeks to do persuades him to withdraw the amendment.
The noble Lord spoke about the mayor having power to impose conditions. Did he mean the authority?
It is the mayor who has the power to do it, because he sets the conditions.
I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[ Amendment No. 455QJA not moved.]
Clause 302 agreed to.
[ Amendment No. 455QJB not moved.]
Clause 303 [ Duty of the Authority to promote tourism]:
moved Amendment No. 455RJ:
Page 159, line 27, after ("people") insert ("from within and outside the United Kingdom")
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 455RJ I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 455WAB and 455WAC. My noble friend Lord Falkland will speak to Amendments Nos. 455XAA and 455ZAYA. For the record, these amendments are grouped with Amendments Nos. 455UA, 455VA and 455ZAA, to which other noble Lords will speak.
Amendment No. 455RJ is designed to encourage visitors from within as well as outside the UK; in other words, not just overseas visitors. I am concerned that the Bill places emphasis on encouraging visitors from outside. I dare say that we, who by definition spend a good deal of time in London, are above all the ones who miss all the great benefits that London has to offer. Of course, London provides attractions for UK visitors, but I have tabled this amendment to try to understand the Government's thinking on this matter. Amendment No. 455WAB is similar, and Amendment No. 455VA in the name of the Conservative Front Bench is one to which I have added my name.
Amendment No. 455WAC picks up the references in the Bill to those who visit the UK by way of London. Clause 303(4)(b) provides that the authority shall have power to encourage people coming to and through London to visit, not just London, but the UK. Visit, yes, but I believe that it is not necessary, and quite possibly undesirable, that all transport should head for London. In tabling this amendment I had particularly in mind the strains placed on London, as well as the benefits conferred upon it, by its major airports. I also had in mind the disadvantage that is often suffered by regional airports because so many visitors to the UK arrive in London rather than go directly to the regions.
I also refer to the Channel Tunnel Rail Link which I hope will soon persuade visitors to the UK not to go straight to London or to the south coast and then, because of the way that services are organised, head for London. We are glad to have the visitors, but I do not believe that in this Bill we should be so ambitious as to disadvantage other parts of the United Kingdom. We should be aware of the dangers of overheating and stress by bringing in everybody through London. I beg to move.
I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 455UA, 455VA and 455ZAA which are in my name and are grouped with Amendment No. 455RJ. I share some of the intentions of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. The reason for tabling these amendments is to put to the Government the general question: how and for whom should the mayor and authority promote tourism in future? At this stage all of these are probing amendments.
Paragraph 5.96 of the White Paper states:I agree with those sentiments. Clause 303 imposes on the GLA a duty to promote tourism. It is intriguing to note that this clause: was not originally on the face of the Bill. It was added by the Government at Committee stage in another place. It was something of an afterthought, albeit a very important one, and one that I was pleased to see. My amendments address the question of who should benefit from the GLA's promotion of tourism. Knowing how widely read the Minister is—it may sound as though I am creeping, but he has caught me out on matters such as this before—I suspect that he has had the opportunity to read the report Making the Connections, which was recently produced by the English Tourism Council, the English Historic Towns Forum and English Heritage. The report claims that England's historic towns are in danger of being swamped by tourists. The newly appointed chairman of the ETC, Alan Britten, was quoted in the Guardian on 19th July as saying:"Tourism is vital to London's future. It contributes some £8.5 billion to the economy of the capital and 220,00 people are directly employed in tourism-related jobs. Tourism in London is very important to the UK as a whole. Over half of nil overseas tourism expenditure in the UK is spent in London and London is the best known image overseas of the UK".
I believe that he hit the nail very firmly on the head. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, Clause 303(1)(b) imposes a duty on the GLA to encourage tourists from overseas to visit the UK by way of London. I echo the concern that she has raised regarding the question of whether it is necessary and desirable, and whether there are other ways in which tourists can be encouraged to come to the United Kingdom and spend as much as possible of their money to contribute to our economy. Technically, as a result of my other amendments, Amendment No. 455VA amends Clause 303(1)(c), to make it clear that the promotion and provision of tourist amenities in London should be for the benefit of London's residents and workers, as well as for the benefit of visitors. Amendment No. 455ZAA is consequential on Amendment Nos. 455UA and 455VA."We have to promote an awareness so as not to kill the goose that lays the golden egg … You certainly don't want to take away the volume, but you have to try to find a way of handling the volume".
7 p.m.
From my accent, it will not surprise anyone that I support the amendment. I believe that the Government might be wise to think again about promoting London as the gateway to Britain. London is, de facto, a wonderful destination in its own right.
I happen to believe that it is singularly unfortunate that we have in this country decided to concentrate exclusively on London in terms of air transport, thus preventing many people from visiting other parts of Britain simply because they have arrived in London and find it expensive on occasions to move onwards. I believe that it would be greatly in the public interest to encourage the use of major regional airports. I would obviously prefer Scotland to be one of the destinations—and Glasgow would be the obvious airport—but Manchester may also be considered. Some of our American visitors who came to the Open Golf Championship at Carnoustie had to fly for an extra hour across the Atlantic, bypassing Scotland, in order to arrive in London; they then had to purchase expensive air tickets to return again to Scotland—a ridiculous situation. Some of these people will no doubt be returning next year to St. Andrews. We really must be very careful that we do not concentrate too many resources on London. It already is, quite correctly, a huge draw in its own right. As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St. Johns, pointed out, 54 per cent of our tourism expenditure overseas is spent in London. That is undesirable. It is a matter of regional policy which we should be spreading around the country.I take quite a different view of this matter. I believe that if this person is elected to be responsible for London, London is certainly the cause that he should be promoting.
I listened with some sympathy to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, in relation to Scotland. However, I believe that it is up to Scotland to solve their own problems. It is not for the mayor or the Greater London Authority to decide what should be done to help Scotland. The rest of the world—and I speak as someone who has come from 12,000 miles away—believes that London is the hub of the universe to visit. That is what brings people here. It provides a huge source of employment. I do not believe that any improvement in other areas will result from the mayor denigrating or taking less interest in the promotion of London. I believe that such improvements are more likely to be achieved as a result of the mayor promoting London. I therefore oppose this amendment.I thank the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, for the speech that he did not make! He suggested that visitors should go direct to Scotland or Northern Ireland and thus relieve London of the responsibility about which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has complained.
As Clause 303(1)(b) is worded, it gives the impression that the idea is to persuade people to go to other parts of the United Kingdom, using London as a point of entry to the country, as they did for the Open Golf Championship the other day. Scottish tourism needs to point out to visitors to London the fact that they can go on to visit other places. They may also wish to encourage such visitors to give London the benefit of their custom but point out that there are other parts of the United Kingdom that they could visit. There are several angles to this amendment. I was rather disappointed to hear that my noble friend on the Front Bench does not like Clause 303(1)(b), because I believe that that is what it means. It will be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say.I speak to Amendments. Nos. 455XAA and 455ZAYA standing in my name and the names of my noble friends Baroness Hamwee and Lord Phillips of Sudbury. We have returned to the question of lists.
On this occasion, however, we seek to add the London Tourist Board to the list of bodies named in Clause 303(11). Five boards or authorities are listed in this paragraph: the British Tourist Authority, the English Tourist Board, the Northern Ireland Tourist Board, the Scottish Tourist Board and the Wales Tourist Board. It seems to us both necessary and appropriate that the London Tourist Board should be added in this part of the Bill. The second amendment at the beginning of Clause 304 deals with the Authority's duty to advise on such matters relating to tourism in Greater London as the Minister may think fit or as the authority may refer to it. For the same reasons, we would add the London Tourist Board to "any Minister of the Crown, the British Tourist Authority, or the English Tourist Board", as a body to be advised. If there are to be fairly comprehensive lists, we believe that it would be appropriate to add the London Tourist Board.I start by acknowledging and trumpeting the unique contribution that tourism makes to the success of London and London makes to the success of tourism in the United Kingdom. The mayor will certainly need to develop clear policies to help him fulfil his role with respect to tourism in Greater London, and he will be free to adopt whatever strategic approach to tourism he considers appropriate.
In general terms, the clauses require the mayor to promote Greater London as a tourist destination, both in its own right and for overseas visitors, as a gateway to the rest of the United Kingdom. I shall return to that point later. The authority will have broad powers to achieve this general objective, including powers to undertake publicity and promotional activities, provide advice and information, and offer financial assistance for tourism-related initiatives. In order to carry out his duties with respect to tourism, he will receive grant-in-aid from the Secretary of State. With the assistance of grant-in-aid, it is intended that the mayor should implement nationwide tourism schemes and initiatives in Greater London in a manner that is consistent with the national strategy for tourism. In exercising his general duties in relation to tourism, the mayor will be required to give consideration to consulting and co-operating with the Secretary of State, the existing tourist boards and other relevant persons and organisations. He will also be required, if asked, to give advice to the tourist boards and Ministers. Clause 303(1)(a) places a duty on the mayor to encourage people to visit Greater London. The effect of Amendment No. 455RJ is to state expressly that such visitors may be people either from within or outside the United Kingdom. The provision the amendment seeks to amend already encompasses people generally, in other words, both inside and outside, and therefore the amendment is unnecessary. It is intended that the mayor should have statutory duties to promote tourism in Greater London in all its forms. Although it is recognised that London is not the only "gateway" for tourists to the United Kingdom, it is clear that it has a very significant role as such. The provision that Amendment No. 455UA seeks to remove was included to highlight this important aspect of the tourism industry in Greater London which the Government would not wish to see undervalued. We need a little further explanation on this matter. The British Tourist Authority is the authority that encourages visitors to go to other areas of the United Kingdom. The authority is funded by taxpayers, including the taxpayers of Greater London. However, over 50 per cent of visitors want to come to London, and it is very difficult to stop them if they want to do that. Our intention is to persuade those visitors to move beyond London. That is the object of the exercise. Noble Lords have interpreted subsection (4)(b) in two different ways. One way is to encourage them to come via Greater London and not any other way, and the other is to visit the United Kingdom via Greater London. If that has caused confusion then I think we should look at the wording again in order to ensure that everyone interprets the clause in the same way. It is certainly not the Government's intention to cause confusion in this way. The mayor also has a duty to the promotion and development of the tourism industry in Greater London. We do expect that tourist amenities and facilities provided or improved by the mayor will benefit residents and workers as well as tourists. However, it would be casting the mayor's powers too widely to create additional duties to provide and improve amenities and facilities for residents and workers, as is proposed by Amendment No. 455VA. It would not be helpful to remove the definition of tourist amenities and facilities as is proposed by Amendment No. 455ZAA. The definition of "tourist amenities and facilities" in the Bill is intended to cover any amenities and facilities that might be used by visitors to the area or other people travelling within the area for the purposes of business or leisure. The definition is intentionally wide so as to allow the mayor broad powers to enhance Greater London. Removal of the definition could confine the scope of the mayor's duty to those amenities and facilities used only by tourists, which would be inconsistent with the objectives of these provisions. Incidentally, the amendments themselves are mutually contradictory. Amendment No. 455WAB concerns the promotion of London outside the UK in itself and as a 'gateway" to the rest of the country. It seeks to add the encouragement of visits from people within the United Kingdom, which makes nonsense of the provision. Although we recognise that Greater London is not the only "gateway" for tourists, it is clear that it does have a role. Amendment No. 455WAC would remove the mayor's power to encourage people to visit the United Kingdom by way of Greater London. I referred to this issue when I said that we should think again about the wording to make sure that it is unambiguous. Clause 303(11) defines the term "tourist board". It is intended that the definition should mean the national tourism bodies and the British Tourist Authority, which are responsible for promoting Britain overseas. These bodies are referred to in the Development of Tourism Act 1969. Amendment No. 455XAA seeks to add the London Tourist Board. However, the London Tourist Board is not a statutory body and it would be inappropriate for it to be written into the Bill. So the amendment is inappropriate.The Minister may wish to bear in mind that, although he is correct in stating that the London Tourist Board is not a statutory body, it is given observer status on the board of the British Tourist Authority. I believe that it is recognised that London is almost sui generis in this regard and perhaps should be graded up to the level of a national tourist board.
7.15 p.m.
I am not putting forward an argument against the mayor having dealings with the London Tourist Board. I say only that because it is not a statutory body, it is not appropriate for reference to it to be made in statute. My noble friend can achieve what he wants without amendment.
The London Tourist Board is a company with limited liability.
That is true. Regional tourist boards are also companies limited by guarantee, but they are statutory. The position is not entirely symmetrical.
The same consideration applies to Amendment No. 455ZAYA. It is intended that the mayor should advise any Minister of the Crown, the British Tourist Authority or the English Tourist Board on matters relating to tourism in Greater London. We cannot add to that the London Tourist Board because it is not a statutory body and it would be wrong for that to be written into the Bill. I hope that I have dealt with the points raised in this rather long list of amendments and that noble Lords will not seek to press them.I thank the Minister for his assurances as regards visitors to London. I am grateful to him for agreeing to take away the point made on the wording in subsection (4)(b). That raises another issue; namely, whether the mayor should properly have powers to encourage overseas visitors to the UK. I have read the provision that covers encouraging visitors to the UK by way of London and I have laid emphasis on the latter part because I wonder whether the mayor should be given wider powers. The situation is complicated and I look forward to seeing new wording from the Government at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[ Amendments Nos. 455UA to 455WA not moved.]
moved Amendment No. 455WAA:
Page 159, line 32, after ("shall") insert ("without limiting the provisions of section 28")
The noble Baroness said: The amendment adds a cross-reference to Clause 28. Clause 303(2) gives the authority power to do anything to discharge,
"the functions conferred on it by this section; or … incidental or conducive to the discharge of those functions".
This is a probing amendment. It seeks to understand how this provision lies alongside Clause 28, which confers on the authority the power to do,
"anything … calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to, the exercise of any functions of the Authority".
After I had tabled the amendment I noticed a query from the City of Westminster asking whether this provision meant that the mayor could clear streets for the purposes of tourism. I hope that the Minister can give us an assurance on that kind of issue. I may be told that I am scoring an own goal because I realise that Clause 28(2) states that,
"The Authority shall not by virtue of this section raise money".
If Clause 303(2) allows the raising of money, then perhaps I shall wish I had not opened my mouth. However, I shall be interested to learn how the two parts of the Bill fit together. I beg to move.
Clause 303(2) gives the authority the power to do anything for the purpose of discharging its tourism functions. The power exists of course within the normal limits of local government financing. Clause 28, to which the amendment refers, is a general subsidiary power permitting the authority to carry out a number of duties which it is not specifically empowered to do, provided that they relate in a demonstrable way to one or more express functions. That is the equivalent of Section 111 of the Local Government Act. For the very old hands here it was Section 132. For even older hands it was the sixpenny rate. I acquit any noble Lord of being as old in the tooth as I am. The tourism power complements this general power.
In so far as the noble Baroness's intention is to ensure that these powers are complementary, I can reassure her, but I am aware that she previously proposed to delete subsection(2) of Clause 28. That is the subsection that makes it clear that the general subsidiary power is not a way around the controls on GLA finance. If the intention behind the amendment is to permit the GLA to raise money outside the controls specifically for tourism purposes—I take it from what the noble Baroness said that it is not—I have to say to her that she knows what the Government think about that. My noble friend Lord Whitty has made it clear that the GLA is to be subject to the normal local government finance regime. That is not in any way to seek to dent the noble Baroness's enthusiasm for tourism, which we share entirely. But I hope that, on the basis of what I have said, she will not feel it necessary to press the amendment.The Minister, or possibly the officials, sees more in my amendments than I do myself. I am grateful for the explanation of how the two clauses work together. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[ Amendments Nos. 455WAB and 455WAC not moved.]
moved Amendment No. 455XA:
Page 160, line 10, after ("Board") insert ("or Tourism Council")
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 455YA and 455ZA. The purpose of these amendments is to put on the face of the Bill references to the English Tourism Council in place of references to the English Tourist Board. On 19th July the English Tourist Board officially changed itself into the English Tourism Council. 1 am sure that all noble Lords wish it well in the future, particularly its new chairman, Alan Britten, to whom I have already referred. It still has a vital job to do on behalf of England, despite being stripped of its important domestic marketing remit. The ETB was highly successful with the help of its excellent staff. I was disappointed to read in the June edition of Leisure Management that 13 jobs have already been culled from the ETB itself. I hope that the expertise of those staff will not be lost to the industry.
I am aware that the ETC has taken a positive approach to its new role. Today, noble Lords will have been circulated with two publications from the ETC. One is called Focus on the English Tourism Council and the other, A Framework for Action. I have no doubt that it will take positive action. I was intrigued to note that the Bill as currently drafted refers to the extinct ETB. Can the Minister explain why the reference to the ETB
has been left on the face of the Bill and not changed at this stage to ETC? I assume that there is a sound legal reason for the name being left unaltered, but I should like to be persuaded of that.
I note that a Written Answer of 30th June from the Minister for Tourism to my honourable friend Richard Spring stated:
"Following its launch on 19 July, the English Tourism Council will be the trading name for the English Tourist Board. The new name reflects the change in the body's remit and will be changed formally when a legislative opportunity arises".—[Official Report, Commons, 30/6/99; col. WA 201.]
That Written Answer raises further questions. If the ETC can now trade legally as the ETB, why do the Government need to find time in another parliamentary Session to make what must then be expensive statutory changes? We have the chance to do it here. If the ETB can trade as the ETC, why change the name of the organisation at all just for the matter of a relaunch? What does "Tourism Council" as a concept convey so much better than "Tourist Board"? Was this a spin doctor's wonderful imagination coming out with some fantastic new title? I wonder, perhaps; rather unkindly, how much money would have been saved in promotional costs if the ETB continued to trade as the ETB.
I read in Design Week of 4th June that the Government have appointed Springpoint to create a new corporate identity for the ETC. I understand that a new logo will be applied to buildings, signs and stationery and that it might even be used, intriguingly, to endorse tourist accommodation. What is the budget for that exercise and which organisation will pay? Finally, if there really is to be a change of name, why not use the Bill to achieve the change of status? As at least one of those questions was a serious legal question, I gave advance notice of them. I beg to move.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, both for the way in which she moved the amendment and also for giving us advance notice of her questions. She quoted the Written Answer given by Janet Anderson. The new name has trading status only and no statutory basis. It is perfectly possible for any organisation to have a legal name and to trade under another name. Such names used to be registered in the register of business names. I suppose that they are not so registered any more, thanks to the reforms of the previous Conservative government. As the English Tourist Board is still the legal name, the terminology in the Bill has to be consistent with the existing law, which is the Development of Tourism Act 1969.
The noble Baroness asked when and where the change will take place. It cannot take place in this Bill because the Long Title of the Bill concerns London. The English Tourist Board is outside London. We cannot change the Long Title of the Bill in order to bring in something quite different. We are not in a hurry. We are not looking to create a legislative slot. We will not spend extra money on drafting and legislation. But when there is a wider package of changes, we will bring in this change, and parliamentary time will not be wasted. The noble Baroness cast doubt on why the name should be changed at all. The point is that the functions have been changed. However, as the noble Baroness knows from our previous discussions, a number of the functions are being transferred. The balance of funding is being transferred to the regional tourist boards, which—perhaps I may take the opportunity to correct something I said earlier—are not statutory bodies either. The ETC is a different body in a number of ways. It is much more concerned with research and marketing and is less concerned with those matters which are now dealt with directly by the regional tourist boards. Therefore, it should have a new name to recognise its new role. The noble Baroness asked about the cost of the contract to rebrand the ETB. It comes out of the ETB/ETC budget and the contract with Springfield is for £36,315. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will not find it necessary to press the amendment.I am grateful for that explanation. I look forward to seeing how a tourism council differs so radically from a tourist board. But I do of course accept the Minister's technical explanation and the good will with which it was given. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[ Amendments Nos. 455XAA and 455YA not moved.]
Clause 303 agreed to.
Clause 304 [ Authority's duty to provide advice on tourism]:
[ Amendments Nos. 455ZA and 455AY A not moved.]
Clause 304 agreed to.
Clause 305 agreed to.
7.30 p.m.
moved Amendment No. 455ZAZA:
After Clause 305, insert the following new clause—
Mayor To Nominate Board Members
(" . With the approval of the Assembly, the Mayor may nominate a member to the board of each of the following bodies—
The noble Viscount said: The amendment seeks to formalise on the face of the Bill the ability of the mayor, if he wishes, to nominate a member to the board of the London Arts Board, the South Eastern Museums Service or its successor bodies, the London region of the Sports Council and the London region of English Heritage. There may be perfectly good reasons why he may not wish to, but it seems to those of us on these Benches who put our names to the amendment that it is appropriate that this power should be on the face of the Bill. The wording is "may" and not "shall", giving the mayor the possibility of considering whether it is appropriate in each case. I beg to move.
The issue raised by the noble Viscount is the mayor's role in appointments to four London cultural bodies—the London region of English Heritage, the London Arts Board, the South Eastern Museums Service and the London region of the Sports Council.
The intention in the White Paper was, and remains, that the mayor should be closely involved with important London bodies and should work fully in partnership with them. Participation in appointments will serve an effective as well as a symbolic role. However, after looking at the proposals in detail we have concluded that legislation is not the right approach to achieving this. We had discussions with the organisations before the Bill was published and we are revisiting the subject now that the Bill is in progress to ensure that our intentions are fulfilled. What we intend is that the mayor should nominate members to the appropriate boards or committees. This will be achieved either by agreement and partnership or by changes to the organisations' constitutions. Our proposal will accord with the arrangements outlined in the White Paper, which says that the mayor will be consulted by the chairs of English Heritage, the London Arts Board and the South Eastern Museums Service. As we made clear in the White Paper in paragraph 5.189, we are looking for,Given the non-statutory status of the various boards and committees involved and the willingness of the bodies themselves to co-operate, we have decided that it is both impractical and unnecessary to use legislation to achieve this partnership. That is why we are adopting a non-statutory approach. I hope that the noble Viscount will feel that we are achieving the objective of his amendment, although we are saving statutory time and the time of parliamentary counsel."a partnership model for the relationship between these bodies and the Mayor".
I thank the Minister for his very full answer, which I shall study in Hansard. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 306 [ Interpretation of this Part and exercise of Authority functions]:
[ Amendment No. 455ZAA not moved.]
Clause 306 agreed to.
moved Amendment No. 455A:
After Clause 306 insert the following new Clause—
("Part Xa Health Greater London Regional Health Authority
.—(1) There shall be a body corporate to be known as the Greater London Regional Health Authority.
(2) The Greater London Regional Health Authority shall have the functions conferred or imposed on it by this or any other Act, or made exercisable by it under this Act, and any reference in this Act to the functions of the Greater London Regional Health Authority includes a reference to any functions made exercisable by this Act.
(3) The Greater London Regional Health Authority shall exercise its functions—
(4) The Authority may issue to the Greater London Regional Health Authority—
The noble Baroness said: I move the amendment disappointed that the two noble Baronesses and the noble Lord who put their names to it have decided not to do so, as it is an important amendment. It has been tabled, and it is therefore open to any Member of the Committee to move it. I am aware of time constraints, but I am also aware that had the amendment been formally withdrawn I would not have the right to move it.
Earlier today Amendment No. 454 was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, when the wording of his amendment did not agree with his speech. He said that he had been instructed by the Public Bill Office that he should describe it as a probing amendment, and under those circumstances any amendment could be put, whether or not one supported what it said.
In particular, I do not support the idea of a health authority for London. Such an important issue having been tabled, an answer should be received from the Minister on this point, which is why I am moving this probing amendment. I understand that it is over 30 years since London regional government had a health responsibility. To reverse that situation now would be a very retrograde step. I beg to move.
Before the Minister responds I should like to explain that, as I know the Minister is aware, our health spokesman, my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, had hoped to be here. We had originally expected to come to the amendment at an unearthly hour on Tuesday night or Wednesday morning. My noble friend cannot be here this evening. It is not a matter of our not choosing to move the amendment. I am sure that the noble Baroness did not intend to suggest that we do not have faith in our own amendment. That is not the reason for our not moving it.
It is an important issue. Other health issues have already been raised in the course of the debate on the Bill, issues to which we shall return at a later stage. We too look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.I was aware of the difficulty that was created for the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, this evening.
We have made it clear in our previous responses on health issues raised by the noble Lord that, while health considerations would be taken into account in the preparation of the mayor's strategies and the exercise of the general power, we believe that there is no case for a formal health strategy as the mayor would not have control of health services in London. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, will withdraw the amendment.I thank the noble Baroness for that very clear reply.
I know that the content of the Liberal Democrats' amendment has been their policy for many years. When I said that no one was moving the amendment from the Liberal Democrat Benches, the point I was making was that I understood that there was a procedure by which the amendment could have been withdrawn from the Marshalled List. If that had been done, I would not have wasted all this time speaking and having the answer. But I am grateful for it. Of course, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 307 agreed to.
Clauses 308 to 314 agreed to.
Clause 315 [ Research and collection of information: London Research Centre etc.]:
[ Amendments Nos. 455AW A and 455AXA not moved.]
moved Amendment No. 455AXB:
Page 164, line 44, at end insert—
("() The Mayor shall from time to time, and at least once in every year, consult each London borough council and the Common council about the exercise of the Authority's functions under subsection (1) above.")
The noble Lord said: The amendments grouped with Amendment No. 455AXB are Amendments Nos. 455AXC, 455AXDA and 455AXE and they set the framework within which the mayor can work with the London boroughs and the common council to promote research and monitoring work. They provide for a continuing involvement of London local authorities in pan-London research, and they ensure that the mayor has all the tools necessary to inform line development and monitor the implementation of strategies for using the resources of the London Research Centre. They supersede the provisions recently discussed in relation to Clause 276, reflecting points raised in consideration of those provisions in another place and the undertaking given there by my honourable friend the Minister for London to bring forward amendments; to meet those concerns.
In their development, the amendments have been the subject of close consultation between the Government and representatives of London government. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey, in his Association of London Government capacity, for his considerable help in reaching what I think is now a satisfactory conclusion. I beg to move.
I have one question, which is about subsection (7)(a) in the new clause to be inserted by Amendment No. 455AXC. It concerns the costs of collecting or providing information. I seek an assurance from the Minister that there are no severe cost implications for local authorities, costs that could be without their control, with the Greater London Authority imposing very expensive demands on them.
The schemes will be brought together by the GLA in partnership with the London local authorities; and who bears the costs will be by agreement in that context. The short answer is no, there will not be an additional cost to which the local authorities would be subjected without their consent.
I am grateful to my noble friend for introducing the amendment. There have been extensive consultations with the Association of London Government on this provision. The proposal here meets many of the concerns and issues raised. For that reason, I welcome it.
I retain a nagging concern. On an earlier amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, referred to the possibility that we might have an elected mayor who did not always harbour the best of intentions towards everything that exists in London. I have a slight concern as regards existing research work carried out by the London Research Centre on behalf of the London boroughs. There might be pressure from a future mayor who may not understand its importance to request that a scheme be agreed. The London boroughs would clearly wish the work to continue and would no doubt agree to such a scheme. However, the resources to pay for that work might already have been transferred to the mayor. I seek the Minister's assurance that the Secretary of State will use the powers available under this group of amendments to ensure that under those circumstances the Secretary of State might intervene to protect the boroughs' resources and research requirements.I echo but do not repeat the noble Lord's words. I do not do so because I happen to be a vice chair of the ALG and of course support my chair occasionally!
The reason that we did not move the two previous amendments was that we felt it appropriate to hear first from the Minister on these amendments which were clearly more substantial, and provided in large measure what we had hoped for. I place on record our thanks to the Minister and his officials for the considerable discussions that have taken place with the ALG to try to resolve the issue. It has been, and still is, a matter of some concern to the boroughs, for the reasons outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. These amendments go a long way towards meeting the provisions we sought. We are grateful that they have been tabled at Committee stage so that we have the chance to consider them. If there are matters about which we are still unsure, or improvements we believe can be made, we shall have the opportunity to return to the issue at a later stage. I am a little unclear on two small points. There is a requirement for the mayor to consult each London borough council. There is no requirement for the mayor to take any notice of that consultation. I am sure that it is implicit that he or she would do so. Perhaps there is a last resort for the boroughs: if they do not get what they want, they withhold their two-thirds support. However, it would be helpful if the Minister would spell out clearly that the mayor is expected not only to consult but to listen and then to act in line with what the boroughs say. On a similar point, the mayor is rightly given a right of appeal to the Secretary of State. Some criteria are suggested on which the Secretary of State, after consulting the boroughs, might consider that appeal. What is the position if the boroughs wish to appeal against the mayor's refusal to carry something out? I can see no provision—I may have missed it—giving the boroughs a similar right of appeal. If they do so, under what criteria would the Secretary of State consider such an appeal? It would be helpful if the Minister were able to respond on those points. I again thank the Minister and his officials for bringing forward this provision at this stage.Consultation here, as elsewhere in the Bill, means that the mayor needs to consider any representations before making a final decision. Therefore he has to take them into account. Given all that, I recognise that there may be a final position of conflict. There is a reserve power here for the Secretary of State when there is a dispute—for example, where the majority of boroughs may wish to carry out research but the mayor is unwilling to co-operate—if the boroughs could persuade the Secretary of State to use that power, and vice versa. So there is a reserve power— it is to be hoped rarely used—to enable both those circumstances to be met. I commend the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 315, as amended, agreed to.
7.45 p.m.
moved Amendment No. 455AXC:
After Clause 315, insert the following new clause—
Information Schemes
(" .—(1) The Mayor may make schemes for the collection of information relating to any matters concerning Greater London or any part of it.
(2) The schemes that may be made under this section include schemes under which each London local authority must provide to the Mayor, in accordance with the scheme, information—
(3) A scheme under this section may be made only after consultation with each London local authority.
(4) A scheme under this section shall have effect so as to be binding on all the London local authorities only if at least two-thirds of those authorities give their agreement to the scheme.
(5) A scheme under this section shall state whether or not it is to remain in effect indefinitely and, if it is not to remain in effect indefinitely, shall state the period for which it is to remain in effect.
(6) A scheme under this section may include provision relating to—
(7) The provision which may be made by virtue of subsection (6)(f) above includes in particular provision—
(8) A scheme under this section may contain such supplementary provision as the Mayor considers necessary or expedient.
(9) The powers of the Mayor under this section are without prejudice to any other power of the Mayor under or by virtue of this Act to require any London local authority to provide information.
(10) For the purposes of this section "London local authority" means a London borough council or the Common council")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[ Amendment No. 455AXD had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Amendment No. 455AXDA:
After Clause 315, insert the following new clause—
Schemes For The Provision Of Information By London Councils: Supplementary
(" .—(1) Where—
the Mayor may apply to the Secretary of State for a direction that the scheme is to have effect so as to be binding on all those authorities.
(2) A direction by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) above shall specify the date from which the scheme is to have effect by virtue of the direction.
(3) Before giving a direction under subsection (1) above the Secretary of State shall consult each London local authority and may give such a direction only if he considers—
(4) For the purposes of any scheme made by virtue of subsection (2) of section ( Information schemes) above each London local authority shall have power to collect any information which is required to be provided by that authority to the Mayor under the scheme.
(5) For the purposes of this section a London local authority means a London borough council or the Common council.")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
moved Amendment No. 455AXE:
After Clause 315, insert the following new clause—
Revocation Or Variation Of Information Schemes
(" .—(1) A scheme under section ( Information schemes) above may at any time—
(2) Before deciding whether to revoke or vary a scheme by virtue of subsection (1) above the Mayor shall consult each London local authority.
(3) Where the Mayor revokes or varies a scheme by virtue of subsection (1) above he shall notify each London local authority of the revocation or variation.
(4) For the purposes of this section "London local authority" means a London borough council or the Common council.")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 316 [ Accommodation for Authority and functional bodies]:
moved Amendment No. 455AYA:
Page 165, line 38, after ("for") insert ("the Authority or")
The noble Lord said: The amendment seeks clarification from the Minister. Clause 316(4) states:
"The Secretary of State need not provide accommodation for a body under subsection (1)".
We seek clarification from the Minister that, although the subsection refers to a body, it does not mean only the functional body but also includes the authority. If the authority should say that it does not need or wish to have the accommodation, the Minister is not still required to provide it. I am sure that the Minister will be able to clarify the provision.
Since subsection (4) refers back to subsection (1), its reference is to include paragraphs (a) and (b): that is, the authority and each of the functional bodies. The objective of the noble Lord's amendment is met.
I felt sure that that was the case. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[ Amendment No. 455AZA had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 316 agreed to.
moved Amendment No. 455AZAA:
After Clause 316, insert the following new clause—
The London Pensions Fund Authority: Membership Etc
(" .—(1) The functions conferred or imposed on the Secretary of State under or by virtue of the provisions of Schedule 1 to the London Government Reorganisation (Pensions etc.) Order 1989 ("the 1989 Order") specified in subsection (2) below are transferred to the Mayor by this subsection.
(2) Those provisions are—
(3) In the application of paragraph 3 of Schedule 13 to the Local Government Act 1985 (determinations relating to remuneration etc.) by virtue of subsections (1) and (2)(c) above, sub-paragraph (5) (which requires the consent of the Treasury to any determination) shall be omitted.
(4) In the application of paragraph 10 of that Schedule (reports and information) by virtue of subsections (1) and (2)(d) above, in sub-paragraph (2) (which requires the authority to send a copy of its annual report to the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State to lay copies of it before Parliament) the words from "and the Secretary of State" to the end of the sub-paragraph shall be omitted.
(5) Any appointment—
shall have effect as from the coming into force of subsection (1) above, so far as so relating, as an appointment made by the Mayor under and in accordance with that sub-paragraph (and subject accordingly to the provisions of paragraphs 2 and 3 of Schedule 13 to the Local Government Act 1985 as they have effect by virtue of subsections (1) and (2)(b) or (c) above).")
The noble Lord said: The new clause implements our White Paper commitment to bring the London Pensions Fund Authority (LPFA) under the control of a democratic London-wide authority. Further amendments dealing with the detailed consequences for financial accountability and audit arrangements will not be tabled, I regret, until Report stage. The LPFA is currently a quango accountable to the Secretary of State. We consider that a body focused on London and affecting the lives of many people across London should be answerable in some way to a democratically elected London authority. This clause puts right that anomaly in a simple way. It transfers from the Secretary of State to the mayor responsibilities for the appointments and tenure of office of members of the LPFA board, for determining their remuneration, and for receiving reports and information. This will be to the benefit of the pensioners and others for whose interests the fund is responsible, and to London as a whole. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 317 agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 318 shall stand part of the Bill?
When I spoke in favour of urban parish councils on the Second Reading of the Bill I was urging the Government to bring London into line with the rest of the country. Scotland and Wales, as I said then, have small community councils and the whole of England has the right to urban parish councils by virtue of the Local Government and Rating Act 1997.
This Act was supported by all parties and is now being vigorously promoted by the same Department of the Environment which has been refusing London the same rights as other parts of England. Urban parish councils are being set up in Leeds, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Portsmouth, Tameside, Hartlepool and quite a number of other places and so the question inevitably arises: why the rest of the country and why not London? The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is to be congratulated on his stamina and skill in bringing us so far with this complex Bill. He argued powerfully in the course of the debate on 7th July, when opposing amendments about the Metropolitan Police, that the Met should be under the same statutory obligations as the rest of the country. The noble Lord urged consistency about police authorities, and I hope that tonight he will accept that there should also be consistency across the country about urban parish councils. Clause 318 is in an unusual position. It was introduced, I understand, into the original Bill as a government amendment late in the discussions in the other place and so was not very fully debated. It confers very sweeping catch-all powers, or it seems almost catch-all powers, on the Minister to make orders for,like the Act to which I have just referred. I seek from the Minister—I wrote to him in advance to give him an idea of what I was proposing to say—an assurance that these wide powers include the power to apply the provisions of the Local Government and Rating Act 1997 to London. That would be an important step forward for those who do not want London to be excluded from what has become a national movement for urban parish councils everywhere else. I am pushing this issue, and have been doing so for 40 years, because I believe rather passionately in communities of place. It is often argued that communities have changed their character, and of course they have. They consist in particular of all sorts of special interest groups: football clubs, religious groups, people who use the Internet to join up with other people who believe in black magic, or special diets for cancer and all sorts of other things. There is a great host of worthy voluntary bodies and groups which exist. Of course I accept that it has happened. There are more specialist interest groups than there used to be, and the Internet is adding to their number. However, communities of locality are still, in my submission, of enormous importance. The community formed around the place where people live still matters. People's homes are obviously precious to them. This is the bit of the world to which they have a special attachment and in which they feel most fully themselves. But some of that attachment also spreads out into the little districts around their homes. If you ask people where they belong—as I have, in a number of surveys—they may say "England." They would certainly say "London" and often, with most feeling, one finds, they would refer to the little district—their own street and the streets around that, the district that has shops which they use; the district which has a church and a few local pubs, a post office and a primary school and maybe a small local park and a swimming pool. London is not a vast undifferentiated urban area. It is made up of a series of much smaller places within the whole, which are living cells of that whole. Gertrude Stein, of blessed memory, said about Los Angeles, the world's largest city in terms of territory, "There is no there there." She could not have said that about London. There are many local "theres" in London. Here are many "heres" in London: from Pimlico to Bow, from Kentish Town to Brixton. David Hume, the great Scottish philosopher, wrote a lot about propinquity as a basis of common association. It is now a quaint word, but one that I much like. I believe that people's sense of their own identity, even now in this small mobile age, is still partly bound up in their own home, in their own homeland territory around it and in their local public realm, as the recent report which appeared under the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rogers, called it. If they care about it, as so many people do, that is a good basis for local political life, focused on the common concerns and aspirations of the citizens who are near enough to each other to have a sense of propinquity—that word again—and a recruitment ground for people who are going to seek wider public responsibility. This is where people can become engaged in their common affairs at their most basic. This needs to have its most democratic institutions if democracy at higher levels is to be enhanced. All we are saying is fully compatible with what the noble Lord, Lord Rogers, in his report, is recommending about home zones. The new parish councils could introduce such home zones. Based on the best German and Dutch examples, home zones would be groups of streets which create living spaces where pedestrians have absolute priority and cars travel at little more than walking pace, suitable to a parish. Why, if it all happened, children might emerge from their homes and once again be playing in the streets. I think I can recommend any of the candidates for mayor of London to put elected grass-roots councils into his or her manifesto. I believe that could yet be, strange as it may seem, a winning card which makes much of the little and puts himself or herself on the side of the small man or woman in a big world and a big London. Anyway, back to my question: I want to ask the Minister whether he can confirm that the sweeping powers given to the Minister by Clause 318 could be used to apply the relevant parts of the 1997 Local Government and Rating Act to London, as it does to the rest of the country. I beg the Minister to help us."incidental, consequential, transitional or supplementary provision as appears to him to be necessary or expedient … in consequence of the provisions of any other Act passed previously",
8 p.m.
I want to speak in support of my noble friend Lord Young of Dartington, as I did during Second Reading. The points which he then made and has repeated today have a great deal of force. People identify most closely with the immediate neighbourhood in which they live. In London, there are numerous villages not unlike the rural villages with their parish councils; and certainly not unlike the areas where neighbourhood councils are permitted. The residents of those areas petitioned for them to be allowed. Perhaps because London can be so impersonal, there may be a greater need for community councils than elsewhere. It is remarkable that only in London are they not permitted.
The Bill, which my noble friend has been so diligent in taking through nine days of Committee, is concerned with setting up an authority with a mayor and an assembly. The members of the assembly, apart from those who are chosen on the basis of party lists, will each represent some 300,000 electors. Surely, there should be a link between them and the electors. Let us hope—although I do not have great hopes—that the electors will be larger in number than we have become accustomed to in recent months. The greatest enemy of local government, as my noble friend said on other occasions, is apathy. But there would be no apathy about electing small neighbourhood community councils. I recall that the White Paper, which preceded the Bill, indicated that when the members of the assembly are concerned to discuss strategy and policy they should be sure that they reflect people's views. Let them have, to aid them, the eyes and ears of community councils in local neighbourhoods where people feel they belong. Will Clause 318 enable an order to be made by Ministers to allow in London what is feasible and allowed in other parts of the country without difficulty? That is all that is being asked for and I hope that the Minister will be able to give encouragement to my noble friend who has raised this important matter tonight.I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Young, on his ingenuity in finding not just a hook on which to hang an argument but a substantive point which could enable what many of us have long argued for to come about. We tried to table a more direct amendment on the subject of parishes in London, only to be told that it was not within the Title. I said to those in the Public Bill Office that I should reserve the right to argue that at a later date. However, we are pleased to have the opportunity to support the noble Lord tonight.
It has long been the policy of these Benches, and it was argued in this House and in another place during the course of the 1997 Act, that London should not be excluded from parishing. As I have learnt during the course of the Bill from my noble friend, one should talk about spheres and not tiers of government. That is a good term. Parishes ought not to be regarded as junior; they are important forms of government in themselves. London is often described as a world city. It is made up of many villages and even smaller entities. I was interested in the guidance issued by the previous government in relation to the 1997 Act, which stated that the larger the town the greater will be the scope for the identification of distinct communities within it. That is an interesting point which applies in particular to the biggest of the lot.I spend most of my life trying to help communities to evolve in London. I have been at it for 25 years. The Church has parish church councils throughout London. I have joined the debate only today and it is most refreshing to hear such a proposal rather than dealing with only structural backgrounds. Having been a practitioner, I fully support the noble Lord, Lord Young.
Sadly, propinquity was no longer the people's personal propinquity. In other words, the area idea survives in some parts of North and East London. I was part of a new town and I know that in many places people's neighbourhood was where they worked, where they had interest groups, where they played golf and so forth. Sometimes, people did not know what was in their area. Whereas Bethnal Green might have had a real identity it is now very different. It contains several communities and it would take great subtlety to create a parish council.I beg the right reverend Prelate to recognise that there remains a sense of identity in Bethnal Green, even though the composition of the population has changed.
I have based a great deal of my work on that belief, but I am not sure how far we are trying to reimpose the village concept in a city which is extremely mobile and diverse and, it must be said, often apathetic.
The noble Lord's argument would be that his proposal would undermine the apathy and that people would discover their identity and community. Maybe, just maybe, but before one created another level I should like harder evidence that it would work. The apathy found in large estates can be countered by estate battles, but nearly always a battle against an outside body such as an authority. There is a great deal of anonymity and I am weary of going down an idealisation of reality.It has been a pleasure to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington. I hope that he will remain with us for our subsequent debate on international development where he will find similar views expressed.
I hesitate to delay the debate on international development. However, I cannot let this pass without saying a few words. It is very nearly 26 years since, to my considerable surprise, I was successful in the Private Members' ballot in another place and chose, as my Private Member's Bill, The London Parish Councils Bill, for exactly the reasons expressed so eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington.
The case for parishes has been strongly and eloquently made tonight. I support all that has been said. I feel as strongly on the issue now as I did 25 or 26 years ago, even though in the intervening time I have been a London borough councillor, which I was not at that time. I am well aware that some who have been county councillors or even district councillors are not always enthusiastic about parish councils. However, the issue tonight is not whether we favour parish councils in London; it is for the Minister to explain to us—and to give me an answer to a question which I have not received in 26 years—why in England, London alone is not allowed to have urban parish councils. Even if a community in London clambers and demonstrates 100 per cent support and enthusiasm for a parish council, the law does not permit it. Why are Londoners alone so discriminated against? Why have successive governments refused to provide legislation to enable London to be like the rest of the country? Indeed, would this Bill give us that opportunity?Perhaps I may speak briefly about the Walthamstow Housing Action Trust, which I visited recently. Tremendous changes have happened there. Many people say that that is simply because the Government have poured millions into it. However, it all started because a few women went to Horseferry Road with fallen masonry from their housing estate and said, "Look; this housing estate is falling to pieces around our ears. You have to do something about it". So, local action can be vigorous and effective.
It has been some considerable time since we had this level of passion for the GLA Bill. I suppose I should thank my noble friend Lord Young for intervening at this stage and giving us something to think about. Perhaps I may make two comments: first, the Government do not agree with him, for a range of reasons, partly related to the comments made by the right reverend Prelate and partly to another aspect of practicality.
Secondly, even if I had been convinced over the last 20 minutes and we did agree with him, the amendment is not appropriate in this Bill. It is certainly not appropriate to link it to this clause. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, stated, it is outside the scope of the Bill which deals with the construction of a Greater London Authority above the level of London boroughs, not with the structure of local government below that level. There may be appropriate Bills which deal with London government in general, but this is not the appropriate Bill. Even if that problem was overcome, this clause, which has been described as containing "sweeping powers", is not. Clause 318 only allows the Minister to make incidental, consequential, transitional or supplemental provisions as appear to him to be necessary or expedient in order to achieve the general purposes of the Bill. It does not allow him to do anything else in London in relation to the structure of local government or London democracy but to deal with the issues covered by the purposes of the Bill. There is clearly a large number of empathetic arguments for the amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, said and others have echoed. However, the Bill is not the appropriate Bill and the clause is not an appropriate clause. I am sorry to be so boring and legalistic about this, but that is the fact. I would therefore ask my noble friend not to pursue the amendment at this stage and on this Bill.I thank the Minister for his courtesy, but not for the content of what he said. I did not find it wholly surprising, but sad. I believe that the Government are missing a real opportunity to show that, given a change in structure, considerable energies could be brought forth from people who at present do not think anything of politics and do not see themselves as playing any part in representative institutions.
This is a feeling which, so far as it exists, and it does, we need to combat in every way possible. Admitting that London should have the same rights as the rest of the country would show, as it would in practice, that it really does something when people have a right which has been denied to them. I agree with the right reverend Prelate that there are many parts of London which are not perhaps in the first line of suitability for having the new kind of council for which we have been urging. However, the beauty of the Act—if an Act which has "Rating" in its title can have any beauty—was that it did not impose anything; it gave the right to people who wanted to have a council of this kind, with enough support to petition the Secretary of State, to be allowed to have it. Obviously if the Secretary of State wished, he or she could turn it down. However, the opportunity was there. A new choice was and is being presented in Leeds and all the other cities of Britain. We will have an opportunity to see whether it really does work to reinvigorate local politics, as I hope it will. However, I accept the Minister's comments as being telling. I am glad to have had the opportunity, with some support, to have made my points. I intend to pursue this matter with all strength wherever I can. However, I do not intend to do so further tonight.Clause 318 agreed to.
Clause 319 [ Transfers of property, rights or liabilities]:
moved Amendment No. 455AZAB.
Page 167, line 26, leave out ("Corporation of London") and insert ("Common Council")
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 455AZAB and 455AZAC standing in my name have acquired an almost Old Testament designation, if I may say so with due reverence to the right reverend Prelate. I do not propose to offer anything either as serious or as long as that text. I propose a simple drafting amendment; at least it is unless the Government intend to nationalise the private assets of what is commonly known as the Corporation of London. But so far as I know, that is not a part of government policy.
Clause 319 is about the transfer of property, rights and liabilities of local authorities and other bodies in London by orders of a Minister of the Crown. Subsection (2)(d) mentions specifically local authorities and in Subsection (3)(b) London borough councils. In both cases it adds:
"or the Corporation of London".
The amendment standing in my name suggests that a more correct reference would be to the Common Council. I shall not spend time going into the many designations of institutions in the City. However, I would emphasise once again, as I did at Second Reading, that the corporation has a private as well as public element. If the property rights or liabilities of the corporation as a whole were within the ambit of a clause, the result would be that the power of transfer would extend well beyond local authority activities and would take in private interests which have no relevance to and are not funded by the local government finance system. Moreover, the clause would apply to property which is neither required nor held under local government powers. The proposed amendment is in line with local government legislation, and indeed with other parts of the Bill before us; for example, Chapter 13 of Part IV. It would therefore seem appropriate to refer to the Common Council, or even to the Common Council in its capacity as a local authority instead.
I shall not press the amendment tonight. I hope that the Minister will assure me that he will look at and consider these arguments. If so, it may not be necessary to return to this matter at Report stage. I beg to move.
I shall not detain the Committee for any length of time at this stage. It has been put to me that the use of the phrase "Corporation of London", blurs the distinction between the private and public assets of the corporation. Therefore, it runs the risk that the Bill is rendered hybrid. I am not entering into a debate about the assets of the Corporation of London and the Common Council, but I am concerned that if the Bill were inadvertently rendered hybrid, all the work carried out by the Committee would somehow be rendered invalid. Therefore, I hope that the Minister can give us some reassurance on that point.
I greatly hope so. I should tear out my hair were I to discover that the nine days that we had spent in Committee were to be rendered invalid. However, I cannot give a definitive answer to the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, tonight. I believe that he may well have a point. Clearly there are some arcane legal matters here. My officials have been in contact with the Office of the City Remembrancer as to the way that the City is referred to in the clause. We have not as yet fully resolved the matter. It seems even more complicated than described by my noble friend and by the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, but I hope that we can resolve all these points in a satisfactory way by the time we reach Report stage.
I thank the Minister and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[ Amendment No. 455AZAC not moved.]
Clauses 319 and 320 agreed to.
Schedule 26 agreed to.
Clauses 321 to 324 agreed to.
Clause 325 [ Regulations and orders]:
[ Amendment No. 455AA not moved.]
moved Amendment No. 455AB:
Page 173, line 43, at end insert ("or
(c) section 317(1) above,")
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 455AC and 455EA. The amendments seek to apply the affirmative procedure orders made under Clause 317(1), which we are bringing forward directly in response to the recommendations of the 16th Report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation. I am grateful to the members of that Committee for their careful and detailed scrutiny of the Bill. This was their major point on the Bill and we believe that these amendments meet it. I apologise to noble Lords inconvenienced by the relatively late tabling of the amendment. Nevertheless, I believe that by this group of amendments we have met in full the requirements of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation. Therefore I hope that the Committee will accept the amendments.
I rise briefly to express the support of these Benches for the amendments. They seem to meet the objectives which we have sought in tabling Amendments Nos. 455B and 455E at a rather earlier stage than the Minister's amendments, but we certainly appreciate that the Government have now met those objectives.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
moved Amendment No. 455AC:
Page 173, line 45, at end insert—
("() Subsection (3) above shall not have effect in relation to a statutory instrument containing an order under section 317(1) above making—(a) amendments or repeals in an enactment contained in a local and personal or private Act, (b) amendments or revocations in subordinate legislation which was not subject to affirmative parliamentary procedure, or (c) provision of any description by virtue of section 317(21 or subsection (1) above in connection with any such amendments, repeals or revocations,
if it would not have effect in relation to that instrument apart from those amendments, repeals or revocations or that provision.")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[ Amendment No. 455B not moved.]
moved Amendment No, 455BA:
Page 174, line 21, leave out ("paragraph 16(2)") and insert ("provisions specified in subsection (4) above")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
moved Amendment No. 455BB:
Page 174, line 22, leave out ("paragraph 22(2)") and insert ("provisions specified in subsection (4) above")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
moved Amendment No. 455C:
Page 174, line 25, at end insert—
("section (Power of Mayor to transfer functions)(4);")
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 455D and 455J. The first two of those amendments ensure that the Secretary of State will be made subject to negative procedures as a result of government amendments made earlier in Committee. They therefore follow through earlier decisions of the Committee. Amendment No. 455J relates to the designation of paying parking places which was missed at an earlier stage in the Bill. At present, boroughs may designate paying parking places where they are the highway agency for the road. The amendment provides that a borough would have to obtain the consent of the traffic authority before it designates paying parking places. That is an important provision in the question of the management of roads, but at this point it is a relatively technical amendment. I beg to move.
I am sorry, but I feel that I must speak out on the issue of having to apply to the Greater London Authority for all one's parking places. I recall that that was a terribly long-winded procedure. Boroughs were driven mad. The procedure took so long and one could not obtain permission to use parking places. Perhaps the noble Lord would—even if we pass the amendment tonight—look at the matter again before Report stage.
I shall certainly undertake to have another look at it. It does not reproduce the old two-tier system which we had before. However, I shall write to the noble Baroness.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
moved Amendment No. 455D:
Page 174, line 27, at end insert—
("section (Restrictions on contracting out certain services);")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[ Amendment No. 455E not moved.]
moved Amendment No. 455EA:
Page 174, line 34, at end insert—
("() For the purposes of this section, the subordinate legislation which is "subject to affirmative parliamentary procedure" is any subordinate legislation contained in an instrument which was subject—(a) to a requirement that a draft of the instrument be laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament, or (b) to a requirement that a draft of the instrument be laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the House of Commons,
or which was not subject to such a requirement by reason only that it re-enacted subordinate legislation (with or without modification).")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 325, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 326 to 328 agreed to.
Schedule 27 [ Enactments repealed]:
moved Amendments Nos. 455F to 455H:
Page 320, line 11, at end insert—
| ("1965 c. 63. | The Public Works Loans Act 1965. | In section 2(1)(a), the word "and" immediately preceding sub-paragraph (iii). |
| 1968 c. 13. | The National Loans Act 1968. | In Schedule 4, in paragraph 1, in paragraph (a) of the definition of "local authority", the word "and" immediately preceding sub-paragraph (iii).") |
Page 321, line 13, column 3, at end insert—
("Section 107.")
Page 321, line 13, at end insert—
| ("1988 c. 41. | The Local Government finance Act 1988. | In section 88(2), paragraphs (c) and (d).") |
On Question, amendments agreed to.
moved Amendment No. 455J:
Page 322, line 19, column 3, at end insert—
| ("In section 45(1), in the second paragraph, the words "outside Greater London".") |
On Question, amendment agreed to.
moved Amendment No. 455K:
Page 322, line 19, column 3, at end insert—
| ("In section 55(4), the word "and" immediately preceding paragraph (d).") |
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 27, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 329 [ Interpretation]:
moved Amendment No. 456:
Page 175, line 33, leave out paragraph (b)
The noble Baroness said: I was surprised to see that this amendment was not shown as having been debated. It was certainly debated in substance if not at this point. However, I shall take just a few seconds to use this opportunity heartily to thank both Ministers for their patience and good humour through this enormously long Committee stage. I know it is normal to offer thanks at the end of a Bill, but I wish to include the officials. They have not only managed to stay awake; they have managed to get through quite a lot of written material as well.
My noble friends and I do not wish to have these remarks used against us as supporting the Bill any more now than when proceedings started. But we are extremely grateful for the way in which progress has been conducted from the Government Benches. I hope that I have not started a long debate. I beg to move.
I echo the sentiments of the noble Baroness, not with regard to her amemdment, but with regard to the assistance given by the officials and the good temper and temperance—in the sense of being restrained—of the Government during the course of these nine days.
I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 329 agreed to.
Clause 330 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.