Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

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

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 335A not moved.]

7 Jul 1999 : Column 899

Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 336:

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

The noble Lord said: The Bill as drafted is primarily concerned with the relationship between the Secretary of State, the mayor and, in this part, the London Development Agency, which the mayor controls, influences and is responsible to and for. However, in our view, the Bill does not pay sufficient attention to the other elected authorities in London which represent communities and interests within London at large. The strategy ought to take into account the views of those authorities in so far as it is possible to do so.

We are back in the business of consultation, what is and is not on the face of the Bill, and what is and what is not conceivable. In an ideal world, we could probably manage without the Bill and leave London to run itself. That is not the way we operate in this country; we operate by law and, because the law is finite, we must get it right. It is our view that in this part of the Bill not sufficient regard is taken of the wider interests in London. That is the sentiment behind Amendment No. 336.

Amendment No. 339 returns to a theme which we have pressed in a number of other areas. It is that the strategy of the London Development Agency and its previous draft should be available on the Greater London Authority Internet website. That is a common theme and I am not the only Member of the Committee to press it. Whether or not we obtain agreement to providing for such a website on the face of the Bill, I am certain that there will be one. I do not apologise for pressing the matter today.

Amendment No. 342 is a "chicken and egg" amendment. The LDA strategy will require wider notice to be taken of it if it is to succeed, and the amendment gives effect to that. In doing so, it is more likely to make the strategy succeed.

Amendment No. 343 deals with a separate issue. The other executive parts of the Greater London Authority--police and fire services and so forth--must comply with the strategy. The amendment requires not only that they comply with the strategy but that they report that they are doing so and how. There is no point in having the strategy and obliging the constituent bodies of the GLA to comply with it without them having to report back. Therefore, the amendment requires them to report what they have done to the mayor and assembly.

Amendment No. 345 opens up the criteria under which the LDA might be granting financial support to other institutions or individuals. It requires that that shall become public in the interests of open government and everybody having confidence in the system.

Amendment No. 347 is aimed at changing a situation in which the mayor can alter the strategy of the London Development Agency without there being any requirement for him to explain why he is doing so. That is not an acceptable way forward. If the mayor wants to change the strategy of the London Development Agency--he has the power to do so--he should be required to explain exactly why and to reveal his

7 Jul 1999 : Column 900

reasons. The mayor can act with regard to a number of aspects of this Bill without his actions being open to public scrutiny. We do not believe that that is appropriate. This amendment deals with one aspect of that general problem. I beg to move.

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

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

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

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

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

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

As regards the amendment obliging the MPA and the LFEPA to have regard to the LDA strategy, that would remove a cornerstone of our design for the GLA; namely, that the strategies should all come together within a coherent framework within which the work is

7 Jul 1999 : Column 901

conducted. It is just as essential for the LDA strategy to reflect consultations with the other functional bodies, as we have provided.

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

4.45 p.m.

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

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

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 336A to 347 not moved.]

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 347WA:

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

The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 347WA requires that the mayor shall consult before revising the LDA strategy. Amendment No. 347ZA, the second amendment in the group, removes the provision which says that the mayor does not have to consult if he revises the strategy. Those matters are linked.

We believe that the revision of a strategy is potentially as important as its creation. The Minister said that she would be able to satisfy me on various points. When she said that I felt that I should say,

7 Jul 1999 : Column 902

"Oh, I've forgotten Amendment No. 347WA." I look forward to hearing what she has to say on the amendment. I beg to move.

Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page