Andrew Pelling (Croydon Central, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 68, in clause 48, page 48, line 16, at end insert—

‘(8) Any constituent body proposing to enter into any arrangements under subsection (2) shall have regard to the needs and requirements of any constituent body with which it proposes to enter into such an agreement.

(9) In making any arrangements under subsection (2) above the Mayor shall ensure that the Authority secures adequate resources from the constituent body proposing to enter into any agreements under subsection (2) to fulfil its functions.

(10) For the purposes of subsections (8) and (9) the Mayor and the Assembly shall be treated as if they were constituent bodies separate and distinct within the Authority.’.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Lady Winterton. The position that the London assembly took on clause 48 was that it was very supportive of the principle behind the provisions and, clearly, there are many efficiencies to be secured by sharing services within the GLA group. I take this opportunity to put on record the credit that is due to the chief finance officer of the GLA, Anne McMeel, for the very good work that she is undertaking in that area to secure the best efficiencies, by the working together of the GLA family constituent bodies.

The assembly is concerned to ensure that it is not denied access to resources that are currently shared by the Mayor and the assembly. That covers a range of important support services, such as financial, legal, procurement and human resources advice, together with information and technology services and, indeed, library services. If some of the services are undertaken for the strategic GLA by a constituent body, such as Transport for London, there is a risk that sufficient safeguards would not exist to ensure that the assembly continues to be provided with adequate support services.

We have discussed putting a cap on the assembly’s budget, but amendments have also considered a floor. I know that the Government did not accept them, but it seems a reasonable idea. The amendment would   mitigate the risk to resources expected to be applied to the assembly and ensure that they are safeguarded and guaranteed.

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

The Government recognise the intentions behind the amendment, but we believe that the changes are unnecessary. The amendment would place additional duties on the GLA and any other constituent functional body in delegating back-office functions to each other and would require those constituent bodies to have regard to the others’ needs and requirements. Proposed subsection (9) would require the Mayor to ensure that the GLA secures adequate resources from a functional body before entering into an arrangement with it.

Subsection (10) defines the Mayor and assembly, rather than the GLA as a whole, as constituent bodies. We do not think that its overall impact is necessary to the Bill. For a start, any arrangement between the constituent bodies concerning back-office functions would be made only with the agreement of those bodies, so they will be able to take into account each others’ needs and ensure that their own requirements are properly safeguarded.

Equally, we find it hard to envisage that the Mayor would agree to take on a functional body’s back-office functions without securing adequate resources to do so from the body concerned. In any event, it is the Mayor and assembly who set those bodies’ functional budgets, and they will be able to take into account any transfer of back-office functions in doing so.

Andrew Pelling (Croydon Central, Conservative)

I am grateful to the Minister for accepting many of the points made, although she does not consider it necessary to make the change. The circumstances are particular because of how the budgetary process is agreed in the assembly, as we have discussed during debate on other clauses. Because the assembly must decide by a two-thirds majority, it is possible for the assembly’s budget to be decided by the blocking third minority. It is therefore likely that any Mayor supported by that blocking minority could direct that significant resources should be withdrawn from the assembly while securing efficiencies by working with GLA family bodies.

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

We have discussed the nature of the assembly’s role and the Mayor’s role in determining the budget. The Government think that there are adequate safeguards to ensure that the assembly has the resources it needs and can exercise its scrutiny function properly.

With reference to the proposals, we should recognise that back-office functions at city hall are already usually shared between the Mayor and the assembly. The clause will require the Mayor to consult the assembly before entering into any arrangement for the GLA to delegate or take on functional bodies’ back-office functions. The assembly will also be free to agree protocols or service level agreements with any functional body that provides a back-office function for the GLA.

We think that the amendment’s intentions are already captured in the Bill. A series of appropriate mechanisms—protocols, existing arrangements, the budget and the Mayor’s requirement to consult—will provide the kind of safeguard that hon. Members require.

Bob Neill (Bromley & Chislehurst, Conservative)

I shall be brief. We have already discussed the assembly’s situation in relation to consultation. Provided that the Mayor meets the requirements of the other clauses that we have agreed will stand part of the Bill, the Mayor can ignore the assembly. So the safeguard is not much of a safeguard. Does the Minister accept that when one is dealing with, for example, the assembly’s ability to access human resources advice and support, or legal advice—which is particularly important—or financial advice, it is important that the assembly have some guarantee of access? There is already discussion—in broad terms I support it—on consolidating the legal arrangements under Transport for London rather than under the core GLA. It would make sense if the assembly had more than the right to be consulted, if it is to guarantee itself access to legal advice on the functions of the organisation of which it is part.

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

We think that the existing arrangements will be sufficient, although there are additional proposals on protocols and on the budget. What we are discussing is merely the ability to combine back-office functions to deliver services, rather than proposals to reduce, change or amend the services that are provided. The measure is simply a practical one and we do not believe that the additional amendments are required. On that basis I ask the hon. Member for Croydon, Central to consider withdrawing his amendments.

Andrew Pelling (Croydon Central, Conservative)

I am grateful for the Minister’s conscientious response. Nevertheless I feel that it would be helpful if the matter went to a Division.