Tom Brake (Shadow Minister, Department for Communities and Local Government; Carshalton & Wallington, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 56, in clause 7, page 5, leave out lines 3 and 4 and insert

‘may, following consultation with the Mayor and Assembly, determine any matter affecting the establishment of the Authority.’.

Edward O'Hara (Knowsley South, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 57, in clause 7, page 5, line 4, at end insert—

‘(2A) The head of the Authority’s paid service shall give not less than 28 days’ notice in writing to the Assembly, together with reasons, before determining any matter affecting the establishment of the Authority.

(2B) The head of the Authority’s paid service shall have regard to any comment expressed by the Mayor and the Assembly within the period of 28 days of the giving of that notice.

(2C) On making a determination affecting any matter affecting the establishment of the Authority, the head of the Authority’s paid service shall, if he has received comments under subsection (2B) above, make a statement in writing setting out the reasons why any comments so submitted are not accepted.

(2D) For the purposes of this section, the expression “any matters affecting the establishment of the Authority” shall in relating to a post or posts appointed under subsection (2), mean—

(a) the total number of any such posts;

(b) the grading of any such posts;

(c) the functions of any such posts; and

(d) such of the terms and conditions of employment that relate to the functions of any such post.’.

Clause stand part.

Amendment No. 40, in clause 8, page 6, line 15, leave out subsection (6).

Amendment No. 58, in clause 8, page 6, line 19, at end insert

‘except any function of the Authority’s paid service to which sections 67(2A) to (2D) apply’.

Clause 8 stand part.

Tom Brake (Shadow Minister, Department for Communities and Local Government; Carshalton & Wallington, Liberal Democrat)

The Great London Authority Act 1999 provides that the assembly is responsible for appointing staff to the authority, including those responsible for the three distinct roles of setting the establishment, agreeing staffing-related policies and procedures and appointing staff. In practice, assembly members are not involved directly in the appointment of staff other than to senior posts within the secretariat, the statutory officers, and director-level appointments across the rest of the authority. This highlights an important distinction in respect of the staffing establishment—the creation and deletion of positions—and the appointment of staff, filling the posts that have already been created on the staff establishment. The Bill would transfer responsibility for creating and deleting posts and appointing staff to those posts—apart from the head of paid service, the statutory finance officer and the monitoring officer who would be appointed jointly by the Mayor and assembly—from the London Assembly to the Greater London Authority’s head of paid service.

Amendments Nos. 56 and 57 would, if amendments Nos. 39 or 40 were not accepted, amend the Bill to put in place safeguards requiring the head of paid service to consult the Mayor and assembly before taking decisions relating to the establishment of the authority, and prevent the head of paid service from delegating his functions in relation to the creation and deletion of posts to any other officer of the authority. The assembly unanimously supports the introduction of these safeguards, so again the Minister is in a position where amendments are being put forward with the full support of all parties on the assembly. Clearly, GLA members will look carefully at this debate to see why, if the Minister chooses to refuse these amendments, he has taken that position.

The head of paid service must be placed under a statutory duty to consult the London assembly and the Mayor in advance of any decision on the creation and deletion of posts within the authority's staffing establishment. That would ensure that the head of paid service has regard to the views of the Mayor and assembly, and is accountable to them for his decisions. It would also ensure that the current degree of transparency in decision making about staffing policies and procedures, and the size and functions of the establishment, is retained.

The head of paid service should not be allowed to delegate his powers relating to the creation and deletion of posts in the authority. The power so to delegate could result in a diffusion of responsibility and accountability, as well as potentially making the decision-making process less transparent. If the Government choose not to accept amendments Nos. 56 and 57, amendment No. 40 would maintain the status quo so that the assembly remained responsible for staffing matters within the authority—with the exception of the head of paid service, the statutory finance officer and monitoring officer, who would be jointly appointed by the Mayor and assembly.

When the Minister responds, he thus has two options. He, or the Minister for Housing and Planning, whom I welcome to the Front Bench, could opt to explain why the status quo is not favoured when it provides certain safeguards but does not stop the Mayor and the authority functioning effectively. The Minister for Housing and Planning could say why she is unhappy with those present arrangements; she also has the opportunity to explain why she is not supporting safeguards that could be put in place when this change, if it occurs, will see the head of paid service take responsibility for staff. I will listen carefully to the Minister’s reply, and hold fire until I have heard that, before seeing how I want to proceed with these particular amendments.

Michael Gove (Shadow Minister (Housing), Communities and Local Government; Surrey Heath, Conservative)

I support the principle and detail of the amendments standing in the name of the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington. After the briefest of estrangements over this debate, I am happy that we are once more reunited. It is wonderful to have the warm embrace of the Liberal Democrats once more restored. I will make no comment about the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), or about the Liberal Democrats leaving and then re-embracing other individuals.

As to the matter under debate, the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington pointed out that the current arrangement works well. It has the merit of ensuring that the assembly has an important role to play in staff appointments. It is important to clear up any concerns that some may have. It is not the case that the assembly is responsible for the meanest and lowliest staff appointment, as some may think. The assembly is not responsible for every discharge of executive function but, crucially, it determines the overall staff complement and has a key role in certain important staff appointments. It is important to appreciate why this system, which I accept is distinctive and not replicated in any other part of local government, has worked well so far. That is because it ensures that debates about staffing can occur transparently and openly, by operating across parties.

One concern that many people had about the mayoral system, and the idea of an executive Mayor, was its departure from existing local government practice in England and Wales. There was concern that we would see municipal Bonapartism—that rather than a Napoleon of Notting Hill, there would be a Napoleon for the whole of London—and that questions of staffing, the discharge of executive functions and policy would be  decided by the Mayor and his kitchen cabinet without appropriate openness or transparency.

The Liberal Democrats and I, and my Back-Bench colleagues, have been trying—and will try during the progress on the Bill—to bring those decisions into the light wherever possible, whether on planning, housing or any other area, to ensure that there is maximum transparency and accountability. One good thing about this legislation which the Government originally brought forward in their first term was that there was already greater transparency and accountability about the creation of the staff complement. Because it was the assembly that debated and fixed those matters, it was not simply the case that the Mayor, in the privacy of his own kitchen cabinet, could take his decisions; we could have extensive public scrutiny of them. As a result of that, there is general agreement that the system has worked well. What we are likely to see here is a departure from a system that is transparent and open and works well to a system that will favour the Mayor and limit the degree of transparency and openness.

It might be argued that the new system is closer to local government practice and to the principle that a chief executive should be responsible for appointing staff. In fact, it marks a departure away from a welcome precedent that the Government established in the original legislation. One of the things that it is important to recognise is that the Mayor of London occupies a distinctive position in the whole system of governance that we have in the UK. We do not have any other analogous individual who exercises such a degree of power. To try to say that the Mayor should have all the benefits but none of the constraints that apply in local government elsewhere is to shift the balance in a way that we consider to be unfortunate.

I know that some people will say that all that is proposed is that a bureaucrat—an enlightened bureaucrat at that, a head of paid service—is responsible for discharging those functions. However, that individual will find that he or she comes more under the sway of the Mayor and the Mayor’s private office, and is less directly accountable to the assembly than is the case at the moment. Given the way that the Government seek to try to remove transparency and accountability from the current process of setting the staff complement, we believe that the Liberal Democrat amendments, by seeking to preserve the existing system, strike a blow for greater accountability, which should be at the heart of every measure within the Bill. We are therefore more than happy to support the amendments that stand in the name of the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington.

Bob Neill (Bromley & Chislehurst, Conservative)

May I support the principle of what has been said by my hon. Friend? I will trespass on the Committee’s time for a short period to reinforce that in practice. It will be a shame if, for what I accept are genuinely good intentions, the Government disturb a system that has worked well, and is regarded by those people who are members of the assembly and by those who work for the GLA as having worked well. The assembly has never sought to use its current power to interfere in the vast majority of appointments. I have referred on other occasions to one or two rather controversial appointments that the Mayor has made within the staff of the GLA. There was some political  controversy about that, and some controversy in the press, but at the end of the day, those of us who thought that they were mistaken appointments, having made our point, did not seek to obstruct them through the mechanism of the assembly.

It was also important that the Mayor had to seek an accommodation with the parties in the assembly to make sure that what he did was acceptable, in broad terms, to public policy. It is worth paying tribute to the current leader of the Labour group on the London assembly, Len Duval, who, during those early periods, was chairman of the business management and appointments committee of the assembly, and who worked in co-operation with Conservative and Liberal Democrat leaders—I was one of them—to ensure that we did not get involved in confrontation. The assembly has not abused its current powers. On the contrary, it has used them in a measured way. So why move away from them? “If it’s not broke, don’t fix it” is a pretty good maxim. I know that the Minister regards Mr. Duval’s judgment highly, in these and all matters, including that most important, which has been alluded to—the fortunes of the great West Ham United. I hope that he will think again about his judgment there.

May I make two other short points? This is not a criticism of the chief executive, the current head of paid service, who is recognised on all sides as a public servant of most outstanding calibre who has worked well with all parties in the assembly and with the Mayor. However, such a post holder is put in a difficult situation. The assembly has taken decisions on staffing at a high level, in public, through its business management and appointments committee, and reports have been made in public to the full assembly. That transparency is hugely important and should not be compromised, which is a concern that we have for the integrity of the working of the organisation.

Tom Brake (Shadow Minister, Department for Communities and Local Government; Carshalton & Wallington, Liberal Democrat)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he agree that the changes go against the trend? Confirmation hearings are about providing more checks and balances, whereas the provision goes in the opposite direction. Does he also agree that it would be pertinent for members to know what the current head of paid service thinks about the changes? He will be required to implement them and he might have views on how that could be done and how effective they will be. I hope that when the Minister responds she will be able to confirm what consultation with him was carried out and what his view is.

Bob Neill (Bromley & Chislehurst, Conservative)

As far as I am aware, the head of paid service has operated with the level of discretion that I would have expected had he been, for example, the permanent secretary of a Department of State, which he might well have been had his career taken a different path. No officers of the GLA have sought the power in question, and it is difficult to see where it has come from. I do not wish to strike an uncharitable note, but I hope that it is not the result of a trade-off to make up for disappointment about other powers being given to the Mayor. There has been no suggestion from any professional body that the change is needed. That was the important point that the hon. Gentleman made.

I shall not trespass on to municipal Bonapartism, beyond observing that between 1870 and 1873 Chislehurst was the world centre of Bonapartism—it was the residence-in-exile of the emperor Napoleon III, who promptly died and so never had to be put to an electoral test. I note that for the history buffs among us. The principal point has been well made by the Front-Bench spokesmen of both Opposition parties.

Mr. Slaughter rose—

Bob Neill (Bromley & Chislehurst, Conservative)

I hope that this is not about Napoleon III.

Andrew Slaughter (PPS (Dr Stephen Ladyman, Minister of State), Department for Transport; Ealing, Acton & Shepherd's Bush, Labour)

No, it certainly is not, although I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is a worthy successor to him.

The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I am wrong, but in his comments on the Labour members of the assembly, is he implying that they support the line that Opposition members of the Committee are taking and that they are happy with the current situation? That is not my understanding from speaking to them. I wonder whether he is over-egging his argument by saying that there is wholehearted opposition to the proposal within the GLA.

Bob Neill (Bromley & Chislehurst, Conservative)

I am sorry, Mr. O’Hara, but it seems, with respect, that the hon. Gentleman may not have been listening to me. I was saying that all parties in the assembly have worked together to make the system work well in practice. That is why it is not broke and does not need fixing. I was certainly not misrepresenting what Labour assembly members say. They certainly agreed that if there were to be any changes, safeguards needed to be put in place to ensure transparency and probity. I believe that they abstained on the matters passed by other parties, and they were put in a difficult position.

Tom Brake (Shadow Minister, Department for Communities and Local Government; Carshalton & Wallington, Liberal Democrat)

The hon. Gentleman has made a point that I was going to make: all parties agreed that if staffing transfers were to take place, the safeguards referred to in the amendments would need to be put in place. Is he as confused as I am about the weight that is being given to the views of assembly members, including Labour members, and those of another party that we cannot quite identify? That validity of that party’s concerns is clearly being given more weight than those of London assembly members of all parties.

Bob Neill (Bromley & Chislehurst, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. Given the history, it is difficult to discern where the drive for the idea has come from. The assumption will be that it came from the Mayor or from his office, but it is worth remembering that the assembly has as good a mandate as the Mayor—it is elected at the same time by the same people. It would be interesting to know why the Government feel obliged to adopt one particular course when there is a clear and coherent consensus against it and when, as the hon. Gentleman observed, the proposal flies against the general intellectual thrust of the Bill. That troubles me.

I think that that makes my point, though I shall just mention to the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush that Napoleon III was elected President of the French republic by an overwhelming majority. So I am happy to follow him in some regards.

Edward O'Hara (Knowsley South, Labour)

Order. I think that we have heard enough of Napoleon III.

Yvette Cooper (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Department for Communities and Local Government; Pontefract & Castleford, Labour)

I apologise for having missed the opening hour of the sitting owing to a long-standing engagement. It is a pleasure to serve under your Chairmanship, Mr. O’Hara. I am sure that the debate will be cheerful throughout our proceedings on the Bill, even when we disagree.

This part of the debate covers both a number of amendments that have been tabled and the matter of clause stand part. In my response I shall therefore first cover the purpose of the proposed provisions and then the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington.

Section 67 of the Greater London Assembly Act 1999 provides for the appointment of three categories of authority staff. First, the Mayor can appoint two political advisers. Those are personal appointments made by the Mayor alone. Secondly, the Mayor can appoint not more than 10 other members of staff whose posts are open to competition, with appointment on merit. Finally, the assembly appoints all other authority staff after consultation with the Mayor.

Clause 7 provides for the staff who are currently appointed by the Assembly to be appointed in future by the authority’s head of paid service, who is the most senior GLA official. He will be obliged to consult the Mayor and the assembly before making an appointment, and he will need to have regard to available resources and to the priorities of the authority. Clause 7 also amends section 70(2) of 1999 Act to allow the head of paid service to set the terms and conditions of the staff whom he appoints, again after consultation with the Mayor and assembly. The appointment terms and conditions of current staff will have effect as if they were appointed by him.

Clause 8 amends section 72 of the 1999 Act to enable the Mayor and assembly, acting jointly—which is important, to appoint the authority’s head of paid service and set his terms and conditions. It also allows the head of paid service to delegate any of his staffing functions to a member of staff of the authority, other than to staff appointed by the Mayor. Finally, it provides that the head of paid service cannot also be a member of the authority staff appointed by the Mayor under section 67(1).

So a series of safeguards is built into the clauses. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath was concerned that the Mayor would be given unrestricted power to appoint a kitchen cabinet, but the reverse is true—we are establishing a head of paid service whose appointment will be a joint one, and we are allowing that jointly appointed official to appoint the remaining GLA staff.

Michael Gove (Shadow Minister (Housing), Communities and Local Government; Surrey Heath, Conservative)

Will the Minister say precisely what is wrong with the current system?

Yvette Cooper (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Department for Communities and Local Government; Pontefract & Castleford, Labour)

I shall come to that. The purpose of making the changes is relatively limited, but the clauses provide some benefits over the current system. The current system is slightly anomalous in that, although the GLA’s staff are largely engaged in carrying out the Mayor’s programme, they depend on the assembly for  their terms and conditions; they are, effectively, appointed by the assembly. The GLA has two branches, one of which largely decides the work programme, while the other is responsible for staffing, appointments and terms and conditions. There are certain anomalies and potential unhealthy tensions in that arrangement. Clearly, it is important for there to be a certain amount of tension between the Mayor and the assembly. That is the purpose of scrutiny; it is a healthy tension to create within a democracy.

We should consider with caution whether it is wise for the terms and conditions of the non-political appointees who carry out the work of the GLA to be part of the political tension between the Mayor and the assembly, and so to be potentially subject to the disagreements, rows, trade-offs and arguments that inevitably take place between them. That is why we thought that it would be a better arrangement for such staff to have a jointly appointed head of paid service who, after consulting both branches of the GLA, could make appointments and staffing decisions in the interests of the whole GLA.

Tom Brake (Shadow Minister, Department for Communities and Local Government; Carshalton & Wallington, Liberal Democrat)

The Minister referred to “potential” unhealthy tensions. Can she list any actual unhealthy tensions that have prompted the change?

Yvette Cooper (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Department for Communities and Local Government; Pontefract & Castleford, Labour)

There are accounts of discussions between the Mayor and the assembly having involved decisions about staffing. The Bill aims to ensure that there are sensible constitutional arrangements for the GLA, and to do so in a way that anticipates potential tensions rather than simply responding to existing arrangements. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath is very concerned to ensure that we anticipate the decision making of future Mayors and assemblies. Given his fear that future Mayors might not be as responsible as the current one, I would say to him that the way to ensure that that is not the case is to join us in backing the current Mayor for a further term of office, rather than engaging, in the style of “The X Factor”, in a search for an alternative, who would, I am sure, be far more irresponsible in the execution of all his powers.

This is simply about trying to ensure that the GLA’s staffing arrangements are sensible.

Michael Gove rose—

Stephen Pound (PPS (Rt Hon Hazel Blears, Minister without Portfolio), Cabinet Office; Ealing North, Labour)

Ah, a candidate for Mayor.

Michael Gove (Shadow Minister (Housing), Communities and Local Government; Surrey Heath, Conservative)

In the Minister’s last sentence, even though there were a number of subordinate clauses, there were more contradictions than is normally the case in her arguments. Let me briefly refer to two of them. The first is her invitation for us to back the current Mayor on the basis that any other alternative would be less conscientious or less responsible. My argument is that most alternatives, particularly the Conservative alternative, would be significantly more conscientious and more responsible.

However, it is conceivable that a future Labour politician will, by some fluke, find himself in that position and be less conscientious and less responsible. That goes to the heart of the logical flaw in the Minister’s argument. She said that she wanted to  ensure that in future there could be no irresponsible exercise of power. However, at the moment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst pointed out, because decisions are taken in the open, through the process of negotiation in the assembly, we have a highly effective check against the abuse of powers. If the Government get their way, the head of paid service will find himself or herself susceptible to greater influence from the Mayor acting alone than is the case at the moment. A deliberative assembly with 25 members discussing something in the open is clearly less susceptible to covert pressure than is an individual.

Edward O'Hara (Knowsley South, Labour)

Order. The Minister has the Floor. That was supposed to be an intervention.

Yvette Cooper (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Department for Communities and Local Government; Pontefract & Castleford, Labour)

The hon. Member for Surrey Heath is confident that any Conservative candidate would be more responsible than the current Mayor. That point is unfortunately undermined by the lack of a Conservative candidate who is prepared to stand against the current Mayor. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath has such a strong and growing personal interest in London that perhaps he could be prevailed upon to be a candidate himself, should all else fail.

The hon. Gentleman was trying to make a point about the need for negotiation and open debate, which is extremely important. It is part of the assembly’s role to hold the Mayor to account, to promote openness, transparency and debate and to have a healthy tension with the Mayor about particular issues of disagreement. However, we should be cautious about making the terms and conditions of non-political GLA staff part of the territory for political argument, debate and negotiation. Is that the kind of thing on which we want the assembly to focus its attention, when it should be concentrating on scrutinising policies and delivery?

Why not leave matters such as staff terms and conditions to the head of paid service according to long-standing parliamentary and ministerial tradition? Ministers play one role and are accountable to Parliament, but we allow Departments and the civil service to take decisions about staffing and terms and conditions. We are trying to focus the assembly and the Mayor on what is important to them, rather than allowing them to get into inappropriate rows, trade-offs and negotiations about practical matters such as terms and conditions and staffing arrangements, which might properly be done by the head of paid service. It is important to note that the head of paid service will be jointly appointed by the Mayor and the assembly and will be accountable to both for decisions on staffing.

Michael Gove (Shadow Minister (Housing), Communities and Local Government; Surrey Heath, Conservative)

The Minister has said that the GLA should have a scrutiny role, but whenever we introduce a proposal to strengthen GLA scrutiny, the Government reject it, which they show every sign of continuing to do. In the one area in which the GLA’s powers are strong, the Government propose to weaken them. Why?

Yvette Cooper (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Department for Communities and Local Government; Pontefract & Castleford, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman obviously wants debates about other aspects of scrutiny, and it would be inappropriate for us to be diverted from the particular measures—

Edward O'Hara (Knowsley South, Labour)

Order. I thank the Minister for that comment. I remind members of the Committee of the terms of debate on these two clauses.

Yvette Cooper (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Department for Communities and Local Government; Pontefract & Castleford, Labour)

Thank you, Mr. O’Hara. We are making important changes to the scrutiny of confirmation hearings, which we have discussed, and to other matters, which the Committee will have the opportunity to discuss in detail. The issue that we are discussing now is a practical measure to ensure that attention is focused on matters that should rightly be the subject of open, transparent disagreement between the different branches of the GLA, while allowing the organisation to function as effectively as possible in managing and organising its staff, terms and conditions and so on.

The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington are unnecessary and would be too bureaucratic in practice. There is already a requirement on the head of paid service to consult the Mayor and the assembly and to have regard to their views when determining the number, grading and function of GLA staff. However, it would be inappropriate to prevent the head of paid service from delegating those appointment functions. The head of paid service continues to have responsibility and accountability for those functions, but it is not right that that officer should have to take every decision about every appointment or staffing issue, as those matters can sensibly be delegated to other officers as long as the line of accountability is very clear.

A consultation period of 28 days before the head of paid service can make decisions would introduce delays and bureaucracy into a system that should be able to respond flexibly. In particular circumstances, the head of paid service may want a 28-day consultation period and a series of engagements and consultations, but specifying a 28-day consultation period, written representations and written statements and responses would make it harder for the head of paid service to do a practical management job in the interests of the GLA as a whole.

Andrew Pelling (Croydon Central, Conservative)

I apologise for not being here earlier. I was at a joint press conference with the Mayor about the operation of Croydon Tramlink. It is a great privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. O’Hara.

Bearing in mind that this is one of two key areas of scrutiny provided to the assembly under the original 1999 Act, does the Minister feel that the assembly has been ineffective in using that ability? She has prayed in aid efficiency, but is that important enough to warrant taking this element of scrutiny away from the assembly?

Yvette Cooper (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Department for Communities and Local Government; Pontefract & Castleford, Labour)

I think that I have addressed the hon. Gentleman’s points already. The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington would introduce inefficiencies. I am concerned about those amendments, because they are not the most effective way of ensuring effective management. I am concerned about the current arrangements on appointments between the Mayor and the assembly, because it is anomalous for the work programme to be  decided by one branch and staffing arrangements by another. That may lead to staffing terms and conditions for non-political appointments becoming part of the territory of trade-offs, negotiations, rows and debates between the assembly and the Mayor, which is not the best way to get effective staff arrangements for the GLA in the long term.

This is a relatively limited, practical measure that will not have a substantial effect on the scrutiny of the assembly—in fact; it will allow it to concentrate on serious scrutiny—and it will not give any other branch of the GLA any more or different powers. This is purely about practical arrangements to support the staff.

Bob Neill (Bromley & Chislehurst, Conservative)

I am trying to follow the Minister’s argument. Can she provide an example of the current powers being used to politicise the terms and conditions of appointment of non-political members of staff? Is there a current example of the process working badly? Surely that would have been foreseen by the Government when the Bill was introduced six years ago. Where is the evidence to suggest that there is anything other than a peripheral, potential risk? Where is the problem in practice?

Yvette Cooper (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Department for Communities and Local Government; Pontefract & Castleford, Labour)

Hon. Members have said throughout that the Bill is about making sensible changes that do not simply respond to the existing arrangements, but also anticipate potential arrangements, such as the future disposition of the Mayor and the assembly. Concerns have been raised in some quarters about staffing issues being discussed by the Mayor and the assembly, but those are not the reason for making the changes. The reason is that the changes seem pretty sensible and allow us to make long-term arrangements to prevent staffing arrangements being used as a political football in discussions between the Mayor and the assembly.

This is not a major change, and it will not cause problems and substantial difficulties in any quarter. It is a relatively sensible, not hugely interesting change that will improve support for the GLA staff.

Andrew Pelling (Croydon Central, Conservative)

Is the Minister saying not that the assembly has abused this power, but that it was just an error to include it in the original 1999 Act?

Yvette Cooper (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Department for Communities and Local Government; Pontefract & Castleford, Labour)

We have watched the operation of the Mayor and the assembly and have learned about the importance of focusing on scrutiny, which needs to take place, and about the need for the Mayor and the assembly to focus on things that matter. There has been a process examining whether the original 1999 Act best serves that end or whether sensible amendments can be made. We have concluded that amending the system is sensible and will improve how the GLA functions in a relatively limited way. Opposition Members cannot sensibly object to those amendments.

Greg Hands (Hammersmith & Fulham, Conservative)

I wonder whether the Minister has read the London assembly briefing on that specific point? She thinks that the proposed changes are not particularly  significant or controversial, but the assembly itself has told us that the Bill provides for changes relating to the appointment of staff

“which will constitute a significant shift in power away from the assembly at a time when existing arrangements function well.”

Yvette Cooper (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Department for Communities and Local Government; Pontefract & Castleford, Labour)

There are two questions for the assembly. First, why does it think that its involvement in staff terms and conditions is so significant? Secondly, should it be the assembly’s function to be involved in and responsible for the terms and conditions of junior GLA staff? Should the assembly see that as an important part of its debate and political tensions with and scrutiny of the Mayor? Should it not simply concentrate on overall delivery and policy and allow non-political appointments to the GLA to be conducted by a head of paid service, who is accountable to the assembly and the Mayor jointly?

If the Government were proposing a head of paid service accountable only to the Mayor, I could understand why the assembly might raise concerns, but we are not. We are saying that the head of paid service should be responsible to both the Mayor and the assembly. The measure is a practical one that will allow a sensible, functional arrangement for GLA work patterns.

Tom Brake (Shadow Minister, Department for Communities and Local Government; Carshalton & Wallington, Liberal Democrat)

The Minister has referred to potentially unhealthy tensions. Will she accept that the head of paid service might well sit in the middle of such tensions, with the Mayor and assembly requiring him to do different things? How about that for potentially unhealthy tensions?

Yvette Cooper (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Department for Communities and Local Government; Pontefract & Castleford, Labour)

In those circumstances, the head of paid service should listen to both, decide the right thing to do and take responsible decisions on the required staffing arrangements. The alternative is for the issues to be part of the public territory and of rows between the Mayor and the assembly.

Both the Mayor and the assembly need to understand that the staffing arrangements and the terms and conditions concern the employment of people who do significant jobs for the assembly but who are not part of the main mayoral appointments or the three key executive appointments, which are made jointly. Neither the Mayor nor the assembly should use the more junior appointments that are part of the GLA as political territory in the debates and rows between them. All that the measures will do is put such appointments on a sensible footing. I am not sure whether hon. Members are desperate to keep this debate going in order to prevent us from reaching other clauses, but I feel that I have made my points as often as it is possible to make them.

Several hon. Members rose—

Yvette Cooper (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Department for Communities and Local Government; Pontefract & Castleford, Labour)

I shall take one last intervention from the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, or allow the hon. Gentlemen to choose among themselves who will speak, but there is a limit to what more can be said.

Michael Gove (Shadow Minister (Housing), Communities and Local Government; Surrey Heath, Conservative)

The Minister has only herself to blame on this occasion. The more she explains, the more obscure the justification becomes. She has talked about the GLA’s vital role in scrutinising executive  responsibilities. The GLA has exercised its scrutiny function, and it has said that such an accretion of executive responsibilities to the head of paid service is wrong. She cannot say that the GLA should restrict itself to scrutiny, and then say when it expresses an opinion, “These people are wrong, I personally find the matter not particularly interesting and, as ever, executive convenience should come before scrutiny.” That is no way to deal with the governance of London.

Yvette Cooper (Minister of State (Housing and Planning), Department for Communities and Local Government; Pontefract & Castleford, Labour)

Opposition Members protest too much. They do not honestly believe that the terms and conditions of junior staff of the GLA should be a critical matter of scrutiny for assembly members. They clearly want to make a political point, and they have had plenty of opportunity to do so. If they are really thinking sensibly about practical arrangements for the management of GLA staff, they will recognise that the provisions are perfectly sensible and respectable and will have benefits by preventing the staff from becoming political footballs to be used by various branches of the GLA. The clauses certainly do not do any of the terrible things that Opposition Members have suggested, and they should be supported for practical reasons.

Tom Brake (Shadow Minister, Department for Communities and Local Government; Carshalton & Wallington, Liberal Democrat)

In her opening sentence, the Minister said that she wanted a cheerful debate. It is a pity that she was not here when the Under-Secretary gave Opposition Members something to cheer about—the indication that he would introduce an amendment on the subject covered by amendment No. 38, which we welcome. It is a pity that she did not continue in the same vein and maintain the general sense of bonhomie and festive afterglow.

We listened carefully to the reasons she gave for the “sensible changes”, as the Minister called them, but I am afraid that we heard no good reasons. We heard a series of allegations—the phrases used included “concerns expressed in some quarters”, “heard of some tensions” and “potential rows between assembly members and the Mayor”—but she could not provide any examples. We have in Committee two assembly members who would no doubt have contributed examples of those rows, tensions and concerns, if there had been any. The Minister gave no hard facts to justify the changes.

Andrew Slaughter (PPS (Dr Stephen Ladyman, Minister of State), Department for Transport; Ealing, Acton & Shepherd's Bush, Labour)

I am reluctant to prolong the debate because, like my hon. Friend the Minister, I suspect that this is a phantom attack. The more I hear from the Opposition parties, the more I believe that they are trying to make something out of not very much. As I understand it, the proposal is that the senior non-political officer of the authority, with joint responsibility for the assembly and the Mayor, will deal  with staffing matters. To my mind, that is exactly what happens in most other local authorities.

My hon. Friend the Minister will not say this, but I shall: there is an anomaly in the 1999 Act that needs correction. It is surely far more sensible for non-political officers to have the responsibility in question. The possibility that the shrinking violet, the head of paid service, might not be able to arbitrate between political parties was considered in the regulatory impact assessment, but the argument is clearly nonsense and was dismissed. The hon. Gentleman is clearly making too much of it.

Tom Brake (Shadow Minister, Department for Communities and Local Government; Carshalton & Wallington, Liberal Democrat)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but it does not divert me from my course. If the Minister is proposing a change to an Act that has been in place for more than six years and is, by all accounts, operating effectively, she should present to members of the Committee hard reasons why she is not happy with the present arrangements and wants to change them. She has not done so. She has simply referred to allocations made and concerns expressed by a source whose identity she has not clarified for the benefit of Opposition Members—I do not know whether she has clarified the matter for Government Members. She has not confirmed the source of the alleged tensions and concerns, and she has done nothing to dispel the concern, which is shared by me and Conservative Members, that the change is being driven by the Mayor and flies in the face of a system that appears to be operating effectively and has the support of Assembly members. I shall not therefore withdraw the amendment but will press it to a Division.