Andrew Pelling (Croydon Central, Conservative)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause is very important for the operation of the London assembly. Analysing the overall performance and the budgetary performance of the GLA family and its functional bodies should be at the very heart of the scrutiny role.

One criticism of the GLA budgetary process made by academics—most notably by Tony Travers—is its tremendous weakness in not providing a separate and independent office with the ability to provide advice to the GLA and to Londoners on the performance and the financial activities of the GLA. It is difficult to progress a budgetary process when one relies on officials who are intimately involved in the production of the Mayor’s budget, and are required to maintain complete secrecy about what is enclosed within that budget, while at the same time giving advice to the London assembly on the construction of an alternative budget.

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

I seek clarification on one point. Is the hon. Gentleman proposing that we use the New York model, which I understand has an office distinct from both the mayor and the assembly? However, the relationship in the new clause between the assembly and the budget office seems to be much closer than in the New York model.

Andrew Pelling (Croydon Central, Conservative)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning the New York City charter. He is a little unfair in suggesting that the process I have outlined departs very far from the New York charter. While I would not wish to be charged with plagiarism, the structure of the new clause relies heavily on the  provisions in that charter. Indeed, I positively decided to use that model because it has been so successful in the governance of New York city.

One of the benefits of that approach is that it will give ownership both to the assembly and to the Mayor by allowing the Mayor and the chairs of the functional bodies to appoint the board, which will appoint a director of the budget and performance office. There will be that involvement and support through that appointment process. Under the new clause, the director would be appointed in such a way that he or she was an independent person, free from party political affiliation, who had the particular qualifications to support that office.

The new clause would promote good discipline as regards the £11 billion that is spent annually on the London Assembly, £44 million for every sitting between election cycles of the assembly. Money would be directed to an effective budget and performance office that Londoners were able to recognise as an excellent and independent source of information on the performance of the functional bodies of the Greater London authority—an office that was free from the spin of the politics of the assembly or of the Mayor through The London Paper—so that people could feel confident that they were making a real judgment on the quality of the performance as regards £11 billion of public expenditure.

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

In case the hon. Gentleman was about to conclude his comments, I just wanted to seek some clarity. The new clause refers to the office receiving the equivalent of 10 per cent. of the annual expenditure of the GLA finance department. My understanding is that there is no such thing as the GLA finance department, so did he mean to refer to the finance and performance department, which is a very large department? Is he including in his figures the people in the different functional bodies who work on financial matters? Will he give us an idea of the scale of the funding to which he is referring?

Andrew Pelling (Croydon Central, Conservative)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to provide further colour to the new clause. I was indeed referring to the finance and performance department within the strategic body of the GLA, and most definitely not to the finance departments and organisations within the functional bodies. There would be some significant expenditure involved, but the most important thing in that provision is that it ensures that there is some protection for the amount of money—serious money—given to that office.

In conclusion, the new clause offers the prospect of providing a strong discipline to the assembly, so that its resources are deployed on its fundamental role of scrutinising the budgetary process. The ability to vote down the Mayor’s budget on a two-thirds majority is the only real executive power that the assembly has. That is important. The proposals would ensure that resources are not unnecessarily applied in respect of the political interests of assembly members. Rather, they would be applied to hold the Mayor to account on financial and overall performance, in line with the model that has worked so successfully in New York city.

Ann Winterton (Congleton, Conservative)

Before I call anyone to speak, I think it would be helpful for the Committee to know that it is my intention to allow the sitting to run on a little longer if necessary. As Chairman, I have discretion to be able to do that, and I felt that it would make people feel more comfortable to know.

Jim Fitzpatrick (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Trade and Industry; Poplar & Canning Town, Labour)

On a point of order, Lady Winterton. I advise you, Lady Winterton, as our referee, that in professional football there are now men who come out and hold up a board to indicate the amount of time remaining.

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

We will not go beyond the agreed time as a result of my intervention. I rise simply to confirm that my earlier interventions were of a sympathetic nature, probing the new clause. Should the hon. Member for Croydon, Central have the time to press the motion to a Division, I will be inclined to support it.

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

The hon. Member for Croydon, Central’s approach is based on models from the United States. Bodies such as the congressional budget office perform important functions in US political life and there are similar examples throughout the American political process, but he will appreciate that the structure and process are different here. From a legal perspective, it is possible for the assembly to set up its own budget research unit or office under its own ambit, using powers given by section 34 of the 1999 Act. The assembly can also use its scrutiny powers. The proposal in the Bill for the assembly to have its own budget could make it easier to fund a budget research unit.

The reason why the Government think that the new clause would not be appropriate is that, unlike America, we have a common legislative framework for local government finance and performance, to which the GLA and its functional bodies are subject. The GLA group’s financial performance and accounts are independently scrutinised by the Audit Commission. The group is also subject to the provisions of part 2 of the Local Government Act 2003, which mean that the GLA’s chief finance officer is under a duty to report to the Mayor and the assembly on the robustness of the authority’s draft final consolidated budget calculations.

A statutory budget and performance office would cut across those existing provisions, potentially leading to duplication and confusion in the audit and scrutiny processes. For that reason, the Government are not convinced about the need for a statutory budget and performance office, and so ask the hon. Member for Croydon, Central to withdraw the motion.

Andrew Pelling (Croydon Central, Conservative)

It is with some regret that I feel that I have not been able to make my case sufficiently well to persuade the Minister. However, I shall not detain the Committee by pressing the new clause to a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

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

On a point of order, Lady Winterton. May I thank you and your co-Chairman for the professional and effective way in which you have refereed, supervised and assisted our scrutiny of the Bill? I thank you for your tolerance of some of the flights of fantasy and fancy in which we have engaged at times.

I also thank the Clerks, Hansard Reporters and Doorkeepers for helping to make the business of the  Committee smoother than it might otherwise have been. I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Minister for London for his hard work and support. I thank all my hon. Friends for their contributions and enthusiasm.

I also extend thanks to the Opposition spokesmen, the hon. Members for Surrey Heath and for Carshalton and Wallington, and their Opposition colleagues, for the way that they have made their points. This has been one of the most cheerful and entertaining Committees on which I have had the pleasure to serve; given some of the others, I am not sure how strong a compliment that is. This Committee has been cheerful and amiable throughout. I hope that on Report things will continue in that spirit.

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

On a point of order, Lady Winterton. I associate myself completely with the remarks made by the Minister for Housing and Planning. It has been an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship and that of your co-Chairman, Mr. O’Hara. The Committee has been an education for me and although it may have been a trial for you and Mr. O’Hara, I am grateful for your forbearance and patience.

I am also grateful to the Clerks for their guidance during the Committee—and before it, when my hon. Friends and I were framing our amendments. I thank the Doorkeepers and Hansard Reporters for their kindness and support. I completely associate myself with the Minister’s remarks about the good humour and amiability with which the Committee has conducted its business. That is due in no small part to how she, the Minister for London and the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford have combined a firm hand on the Executive tiller with an indulgent smile for the Opposition’s sallies.

Before I came to this House, I paid close attention to comments made by the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) when he was Home Secretary. He said that there had never been a Bill for which he was responsible that had not been improved by its passage through the House of Commons, in particular the Committee stage. I rather admired his saying that, because it suggested a degree of open-mindedness that did him and his office credit.

However, I should like to place on the record that although I admire the Government’s generosity of spirit in their handling of this Bill, we have put forward a string of amendments and new clauses, not a single one of which has been accepted by them. We have laboured in vain, but I hope that on Report and on Third Reading the opportunity to reflect on the arguments that have been so faithfully committed into Hansard by the Reporters’ hands will lead the Ministers to think again. They may recognise that many of the arguments put forward by my hon. Friends—and, indeed, the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington—deserve to be revisited and perhaps incorporated at one of those later stages.

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

On a point of order, Lady Winterton. I thank you for your chairmanship and echo the thanks of the Minister and the hon. Gentleman to all those involved in ensuring that events have run smoothly. I agree that the debate has been good humoured, and I am sure that that approach will be maintained on Report and in the other place.

I have only one regret: that both the hon. Member for Surrey Heath and I will leave this Committee with no successful amendments to present to our mothers. However, we shall return to the issues later.

Ann Winterton (Congleton, Conservative)

Before I put the question, I should like, on behalf of my co-Chairman Eddie O’Hara and myself, to respond to the kind remarks made by the Minister and the Opposition spokesmen. The Committee has debated some weighty matters constructively and good-humouredly. I say without contradiction that it has been the best and most  interesting Bill that I have had the pleasure of chairing. I thank all Committee members for that.

I, too, thank the Doorkeepers, the police, the Hansard Reporters and in particular the Clerks, without whose expertise we would not be so well placed to debate and carry the Committee stage through in the traditional manner.

The great thing is that I get to blow the final whistle.