Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

Lord Tope: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can he confirm that the mayor, in making the appointments of the 10 other members of staff specified under subsection (b), will be required to follow the full equal opportunities recruitment policy? I believe that to be the case. If so, can the Minister tell me how, in following that policy, the mayor will be able to appoint all these political apparatchiks, about which he knows far more than I do?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not sure about that. We are dealing with two plus 10. The two are clearly political advisers, appointed on a political basis without other procedures applying. The other 10 will be other personal appointments of the mayor who, like other employers in the public sector, is required to follow appropriate procedures in making those appointments. They may be specialists, personal staff or people to give him broader guidance, but they must follow that procedure. Nevertheless, they are the personal staff of the mayor and therefore it is important that there is a constraint on the numbers in relation to the relatively small numbers that we envisage will be employed by the GLA.

Lord Tope: My Lords, I am sure that, with the 10 other staff to whom I refer, the mayor will have to follow the equal opportunities procedures. In other words, there will have to be open advertisements, the usual specification and so on. Therefore, following that procedure properly, I cannot see how the appointment of so many apparatchiks would be possible, unless they were appropriately qualified apparatchiks, the most suitable people for the job.

I return to a number of points. First, on the question of our family-friendly working hours, I do not know whether we are making progress. The last time we debated this it was 11.30 at night, now it is not yet 10 o'clock. Perhaps we are making progress.

On a more serious point, let us leave aside the two political advisers because there may be a case with them. With the 10 other members of personal staff appointed through full, normal, proper equal opportunities procedures, even accepting that the Government wish to limit the total number, I do not understand why that limit should not be a total number of full-time equivalents. What matters in the Government's terms is that they are working the equivalent of 365 hours a week, if that is 10 times the 36½-hour week. Is not that important? Not whether there are 10, 15 or even 20 individuals working half-time. That is the point. It would enable the mayor to demonstrate that he too believed in family-friendly working practices, flexible arrangements and was able to employ people on job-shares and so on. He could set an example not only to the rest of the authority but the rest of London.

14 Oct 1999 : Column 623

The Bill as drafted by the Government prevents a mayor who might wish to set that example from doing so. The Minister nods. The mayor can do that, but by so doing he or she deprives himself or herself of the amount of work capacity he could have. Of course the mayor can employ 10 half-time staff, but by doing it he deprives himself of half the working capacity that he is permitted under the Bill. I believe that the Government have got it wrong. If the Government wish to be prescriptive in their Bill, I hope that they will return to the point and examine it.

I shall not press the matter at this unfriendly hour of Thursday evening, but I am strongly inclined to do so. I hope that the Government will look at it again. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 246:

Page 31, line 11, leave out (“having taken into account") and insert (“after consultation with the Mayor and taking into account, in particular,").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 247 to 250:

Page 31, line 12, leave out (“the powers conferred on the Mayor") and insert (“the manner in which, and the extent to which, the Mayor has exercised, or proposes to exercise, the powers conferred").
Page 31, line 15, leave out from (“for") to end of line 16 and insert (“the proper discharge of such functions of the Authority as are respectively exercisable by the Mayor, the Assembly, and the Mayor and Assembly acting jointly.").
Page 31, line 32, leave out from (“Section") to (“shall") in line 34 and insert (“9(1), (9) and (11) of that Act (assistants for political groups)").
Page 31, line 39, leave out paragraphs (c) and (d).

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 57 [Disqualification and political restriction]:

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 251:

Page 32, line 14, at end insert--
(“(bb) the London Development Agency;").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 251, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 252 to 257. I hope that these are straightforward amendments which bring the London Development Agency and TfL within the political restriction provisions in Clause 57. They also clarify that, where one of the staff appointed by the mayor is appointed to the board of TfL or LDA, he or she will receive no additional payment. I beg to move.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I confess that at this hour of the night and at this stage of this monster Bill it is increasingly difficult to decide whether to be positive or negative about this measure. I have had to work quite hard on the Bill, as have many other Members. I can well imagine that Ministers and noble Lords opposite who fulfil that role have a more difficult problem. Even worse is the problem faced by parliamentary draftsmen who have to try to interpret the wishes of Ministers and make sense of them. I express the hope that Amendment No. 255 is not an absolute example of the thinking of either Ministers or

14 Oct 1999 : Column 624

parliamentary draftsmen. As I read it, it indulges itself in a triple negative, which appears to me to be slightly excessive:

    “who do not receive any remuneration ... which they would not receive if they were not members of the body".

I find such wording in a Bill a trifle strange. I hope the Minister agrees that it may be more felicitously worded and that he will instruct that to be done. I find this too good an opportunity to miss. I do not for one moment charge the Government--still less parliamentary draftsmen--with negative thought, but I regret to say that in this instance they appear to have indulged in it.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not sure that there is an answer to that. However, if we went through the total Bill to look for felicitous draftsmanship I am afraid that sometimes double and triple negatives must appear in the drafting. I shall look at it. However, I hope the noble Lord accepts that if all of the clauses are read together they make reasonable sense in this case.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 252 to 257:

Page 32, line 15, leave out paragraphs (c) and (d).
Page 32, line 19, leave out (“a") and insert (“an unpaid").
Page 32, line 20, leave out (“without any additional remuneration").
Page 32, line 21, at end insert--
(“( ) For the purposes of subsection (3) above, the unpaid members of any body are those members of the body who do not receive any remuneration (whether from the body, the Authority or any other source) which they would not receive if they were not members of the body.").
Page 32, line 24, at end insert--
(“( ) In section 2 of that Act, so far as it has effect for the purposes of section 1 of that Act, the expression “the statutory chief officers" shall be taken to include a reference to the chief finance officer, within the meaning of section 113 below,--
(a) of Transport for London, and
(b) of the London Development Agency,
whether he is an officer, employee, member of staff or member of Transport for London or, as the case may be, the London Development Agency.").
Page 32, line 24, at end insert--
(“( ) In the application of section 2 of that Act in relation to the London Development Agency by virtue of subsections (1) and (2)(bb) above, any reference to the person designated under section 4 of that Act as its head of paid service shall be taken as a reference to the chief executive of the London Development Agency appointed under paragraph 4(2) of Schedule 2 to the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 59 [Terms and conditions of employment]:

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 258:

Page 32, line 42, after (“conditions") insert (“(including conditions as to remuneration)").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, these amendments have been tabled in response to your Lordships' concerns that it was not completely clear that when the Bill refers to terms and conditions they

14 Oct 1999 : Column 625

include remuneration. These amendments are intended to put the matter beyond doubt. I beg to move Amendment No. 258.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendments Nos. 259 and 260:

Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page