Greater London Authority Bill

moved Amendment No. 29: 29: Clause 21, page 19, line 20, at end insert— ““( ) In section 61 of the GLA Act 1999 (power to require attendance at Assembly meetings), after subsection (2)(a) insert— ““(aa) the Health Adviser and any Deputy Health Adviser,””.”” The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I thank the Minister for eventually—it was not her fault that it was eventually, it was mine—giving me the opportunity of discussing with officials the role of the health adviser. It is not that I did not appreciate enormously those discussions, particularly with the deputy director, but that I still am not convinced that the amendments we moved in Committee are not valid and should not be pursued. That is why we are here today. It is not that I have not listened—I listened extremely carefully to what was said—but my understanding is that the adviser and the deputy adviser are the regional director and regional deputy director and, the Minister having said so on the previous occasion, that they are civil servants. I have two worries: I do not think they are still in a position to be called by the Assembly to undertake proper scrutiny; nor, having discussed it with them closely, do I understand particularly why the regional director and deputy director have to be the health advisers. There are plenty of people in the country involved in health and health advice who could fulfil this role. The Mayor might receive as good independent advice from someone that he employed rather than being reliant upon government advisers being his adviser. The Bill does not require the health adviser to attend the Assembly in any formal matter. Manna indeed. At the last stage, the Minister said that essentially all the provisions in the amendments already exist: the health adviser attends Assembly meetings and advises the Greater London Authority. The Minister also noted that the Bill would formalise what is currently an informal arrangement. Indeed, that is what the amendments are set to do. If that is the situation, there should be no problem with the health adviser’s role being formalised. If the role is currently informal, there is no formal precedent that the health adviser should be a civil servant, so I am afraid the argument falls down. The Minister also mentioned that there is already a memorandum of understanding that enables the health adviser, if a civil servant, to communicate with the Mayor and the Assembly. I do not see why that sensible arrangement could not be incorporated into the formal arrangement for health advice that the Government advance in the Bill. I would like to think the Minister would recognise the benefits and improvements that the amendments would bring, and will be able to accept them. The health adviser’s role, whether it is a regional adviser or one appointed from outside, is very important. The Mayor already has a statutory role within health, but the adviser should be subject to Assembly scrutiny. We should be dubious about whether the adviser needs to be the regional director. Those are the reasons for my concern about this, and that is why I have brought these amendments back. I beg to move.