Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

Lord Dixon-Smith: I am most grateful to the Minister for her reassuring words, which I shall study with care. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 119A not moved.]

Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 120:

Page 20, line 15, at end insert ("; and
( ) the views of such organisations representative of business as the Mayor considers it appropriate to consult having regard to the impact of his strategy on business").

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 120 is grouped with Amendment No. 121. The amendment introduces two new matters to subsection (5) of the clause to which we believe that the mayor and the authority should have regard in settling any of the strategies. Amendment No. 120 includes the views of business and commerce. It could be said that that we have introduced consultation almost ad nauseam in the Bill. I have no doubt that the Minister in his reply will tell me that that is so. None the less, we debated in Committee only two days ago the problems of lists. The greater the list, the more exclusive it becomes rather than inclusive. What we want is inclusivity rather than exclusivity. Therefore I do not apologise to the Committee for introducing these additional thoughts.

Amendment No. 121 is equally, if not more, important. It introduces the requirement to have some regard to compliance costs. Strategies in the field of the environment, whether spatial or those which affect transport, air quality, and so on, all have compliance costs. If those were unreasonably imposed, they could make London less economic as a unit. That would not only have undesirable effects on London. If London's economy starts to suffer it would have undesirable effects at the national level and indeed on the economy of many of the surrounding areas.

I do not think, therefore, that it is unreasonable that compliance costs should be referred to in the Bill. They should be taken into account in the drawing up of the strategies. Of course I accept that with strategies which

23 Jun 1999 : Column 936

bring about improvement, inevitably there will initially be problems of compliance, and almost inevitably also costs. The purpose is not to prevent compliance costs but that those costs be assessed in the strategy so that there is a cost benefit analysis. Therefore the improvement goes hand in hand with the viability of the economy of London and does not get out of step with it. We believe that that is important. That is why the amendments are on the Marshalled List. I beg to move.

Baroness Hamwee: I hope that the Government will say, as we are used to hearing them say, that the amendments are unnecessary. In this case, that is for a specific reason. We made clear when we spoke to the amendments on Monday that we consider the interests of business to be extremely important, and we moved an amendment to that effect. We also noted that the views of business are not the only views which are important.

Clause 33 provides that in preparing a strategy the mayor must have regard to the authority's principal purpose. There are three clauses dealing with principal purpose. It should involve consultation with a wider range of groups than just those with business interests. All the interests which have been identified should remain in the frame.

It is not possible for the mayor not to have regard to the views of citizens' interests in framing the strategy, given that the principal purpose includes economic and social development. For the reasons that I gave on Monday, economic and social development, as well as the environment, are of considerable interest to businesses. They will have views on those matters and, whether or not it is stated, the mayor must have regard to them. My concern is to ensure that the views of all those with interests, the stakeholders, are taken into account where appropriate.

Lord Whitty: The Bill provides for essential and central consultation with business; I hope not ad nauseam because I hope to find a more constructive outcome.

As the noble Baroness predicted, I think that the amendment is unnecessary. It would duplicate the provisions of Clauses 34(2) and 27(3) which relate to consultation with business organisations about the preparations for the strategy, where appropriate. The impact of the strategies on the interests of business is a matter for consultation with the authority because it is integral to the consultation process and to the preparation of the strategy.

The authority is not a legislative body and therefore does not have regulation-making powers like the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly. The requirement formally to undertake compliance cost assessment, which is normally included in legislation, is not included here. An assessment of the cost implications of the mayor's strategies and their potential impact on employment in London will clearly be part of

23 Jun 1999 : Column 937

that consultation process and part of the strategy. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.

Lord Dixon-Smith : I am grateful for the Minister's reply. It is no more and no less than I expected. I shall study his remarks with care. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 121 not moved.]

Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 122:

Page 20, line 15, at end insert ("; and
( ) public safety including the needs of the ambulance, fire and civil defence services").

The noble Lord said: The amendment has a similar purpose to the last amendment and would require the mayor to draw up strategies that would have regard to the needs of the emergency services.

The emergency services, with the exception of the ambulance service, are part of the Greater London Authority's remit through the fire and emergency planning group, which we will be discussing at a later stage. There will be a Metropolitan Police Authority. There should be no difficulty about this matter, but these are important considerations and for the same reasons as we advanced Amendments Nos. 120 and 121, it is important that this matter should be considered by the Committee at this stage.

At Second Reading, I said that I hoped that what had been said during the passage of the Bill in the other place and here would make important reading for all those directly connected with the Greater London Authority at its inception; that is, staff and members. Therefore, although some of these debates might seem to be somewhat esoteric, they introduce matters which the new authority should take into consideration, whether or not such provisions are on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Tope: I listened with care to what the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, had to say, because I had hoped that some new light would be shed on the matter. Of course, the mayor should have regard to the needs and interests of the emergency services. As the noble Lord almost said, it is inconceivable that he would not, not only because they are important but because the mayor will be directly or indirectly responsible for two of those three services.

At the risk of sounding like a Government Minister, I wonder whether the amendment is necessary. Why is it necessary to single out the emergency services--important though they are--for special mention, particularly as the mayor has responsibility for two of them?

In our view, the amendment is unnecessary. I share the view expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that the whole subsection is unnecessary and that to add to it still further would be a retrograde step.

23 Jun 1999 : Column 938

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: As the noble Lord, Lord Tope, the "Alternative Minister", said, this amendment is unnecessary. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, that it is not esoteric to raise the point at this stage of the debate.

I hope that noble Lords who have shown the greatest interest in the Bill will not be repetitive, as occasionally happens. Mention of these issues will clarify where the various aspects interlock. As I have explained, the mayor must consult people whose interests are affected, either by use of the general power or in the preparation of the strategy. The mayor would have to consult the services identified in the amendment where their interests were affected. He or she would also be expected to consult those services that have relevant expertise.

Public safety is already covered by the Bill. I am confident that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment. I am sure that we shall get through the Bill in a third of the time, with great expedition, if the three noble Lords from the Opposition and the Liberal Democrat Front Benches do not all say the same thing.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I was most interested to hear the approach taken by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, which is opposite to the approach taken by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in relation to the Local Government Bill. At that time, I tried to reduce a different list of statutory consultees. I suppose that one should expect that kind of thing from time to time from the Liberal Democrat Party.

I hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, says. She is right to have confidence in me: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 122A:

Page 20, line 30, at end insert ("and
(c) to promote the prevention of crime and the promotion of community safety in Greater London,").

The noble Lord said: Crime and crime prevention are issues of the greatest importance to Londoners. As the Joseph Rowntree Foundation recently observed in a survey, the most widespread source of neighbourhood dissatisfaction is crime. The highest level of dissatisfaction is in London inner city estates. In Brixton, in my own borough, a recent survey has shown that 82 per cent of the local population are very or fairly concerned about crime in their area.

As a result of the recent Crime and Disorder Act, which I greatly welcome, individual boroughs have a duty to co-operate with the police and probation services in the formulation of local strategies for the reduction of crime and disorder in their areas. The intention of Amendment No. 122A is to ensure that the GLA plays its part in ensuring that its strategies, whether in planning, urban regeneration, the environment or transport, contribute to the prevention of crime and to community safety.

23 Jun 1999 : Column 939

The opportunities for crime reduction and prevention exist if support is properly given at the strategic stage. It is not good enough simply to assume that the police will sort things out after the event. Both crime and criminality can be prevented. Perhaps I may give a few examples: the design of Tube stations and trains or the nature of new developments and employment initiatives. There are some exciting developments in the crime prevention and community safety field. We have only to think of Youth Works which marries crime prevention, regeneration and employment initiatives. It is sponsored by Marks & Spencer, Groundworks and Crime Concern. That is one of the many initiatives which are available if a number of different strands are pulled together.

The creation of the Social Exclusion Unit within the Cabinet Office by the current Government was clear recognition of the interlinking of crime with many other departmental areas. If we are to crack crime we also need to tackle other factors. As a former chairman of Crime Concern and as a trustee of Lambeth Crime Prevention Trust, I can say that the real key significantly to prevent crime is now recognised as tackling the problems of disadvantaged neighbourhoods. We need to understand the problems and bring residents into the centre of regeneration. We need to target economic development. We need to strengthen communities. We need to ensure that long-term commitment to sustainable neighbourhood regeneration exists at all levels of government, including regional government.

With the amendment, I believe that the new authority's strategies will have a strong strand of crime prevention which will assist in solving some of London's problems that today seem so intractable. I beg to move.

Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page