---

Greater London Authority Bill

I have some sympathy with what I think the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, is trying to do, but I am not sure whether her amendment succeeds in doing it. As I understand it, she wants to have a situation in which the health adviser might be the public health director, but might not be. My understanding of her amendment—again I may not understand it properly, or it may not be quite what was intended—is that essentially the health adviser will be an officer under Section 47 and an employee of the authority. That would preclude the possibility that the person is the public health director for London. The amendment will not achieve the objective she wants—which is, as I understand it, that the Mayor will have a flexibility. He may appoint the public health director for London, who would be a civil servant, or some individual who would be a highly regarded expert in the field, who for these purposes would become an employee of the authority. I should like to see whether my interpretation of the noble Baroness’s amendment is correct and to understand a little more. While there is an enormous value in the current arrangement, whereby the public health director for London acts as health adviser to the GLA, is there is any reason why that should be the arrangement for all time? Also, are there many other civil servants whose precise role and nature is defined so precisely, given that the roles of civil servants change quite frequently, and we have not had this post for many years in this form. I am interested to know why the new clauses are drafted in such precise terms, saying that it mustbe this post or its successor’s, and whether the amendment would achieve the flexibility that the noble Baroness wants.