Clause
15
Deemed
component budget requirements for last old financial
year
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
The clause is a transitional provision that
is needed so that the limit on the amount by which the assembly may
increase its own component budget requirement in the first year in
which the new arrangements operate can be calculated. The clause
provides for the GLA’s chief finance officer to designate
amounts as the component budget requirements for both the Mayor and the
assembly for the financial year preceding the first financial year in
which the new arrangements will
operate.
There is
currently one component budget for the GLA; component budget
requirements are not calculated separately for the Mayor and the
assembly, as we know. For the first year of the new arrangements, the
budget requirements of the Mayor and the assembly will not be known.
For the percentage increase in the Mayor’s and the
assembly’s budgets to be calculated and for a limit to the
amount that the assembly may increase its own budget to be
set,the chief finance officer must designate the amounts of
the Mayor’s and the assembly’s component budget
requirements for the previous year. The chief finance officer must make
her designation no later than31 December in the year preceding
the first financial year of the new arrangements and must consult the
Mayor and the assembly before doing
so.
The clause will
ensure that the new arrangements for separate budgets for the Mayor and
the assembly may operate smoothly and sensibly in the first year of
their
operation.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Clause 15
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
6.30
pm
Clause
16
Exercise
of Mayor’s functions when temporarily unable to
act
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
The clause provides for the deputy Mayor to
exercise the Mayor’s budget-setting functions if the Mayor is
temporarily unable to act. Under part 3 of schedule 4 to the 1999 Act,
the deputy Mayor can already exercise many functions of the Mayor if he
is temporarily unable to act. However, that does not extend to the
Mayor’s budget-setting functions. Those functions are taken on
by the assembly if the Mayor is temporarily unavailable.
The clause extends the role of
the deputy Mayor to include the Mayor’s budget-setting functions
under schedules 6 and 7 to the 1999 Act. It also provides that for the
period during which the deputy Mayor exercises the Mayor’s
budget-setting functions, she shall not carry out any of the functions
of an assembly member in relation to setting the budget. Furthermore,
the clause prevents the Mayor’s budget-setting responsibilities
from transferring from the Mayor to the chair of the London assembly if
there is no deputy Mayor.
The budget-setting process
works by engaging both parts of the authority; the Mayor proposes the
budget, which the assembly can amend by two-thirds majority, as we
discussed extensively earlier today. The change will ensure that the
assembly is not judge and jury in respect of its own budget if the
Mayor is temporarily unable to act. In that event, the deputy Mayor
will fulfil the budget-setting functions of the Mayor, proposing a
budget that the assembly can amend by a two-thirds
majority.
Mr.
Pelling:
I seek clarification of what would happen if both
the Mayor and the deputy Mayor were incapable of
acting.
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
In the unlikely event of there being no
Mayor, or his being temporarily unable to act, and the deputy Mayor
being unavailable, delegating the Mayor’s budget-setting
functions to the chair of the assembly would serve no useful purpose.
If the deputy Mayor assumes the Mayor’s budget-setting
functions, she will not carry out any of the functions of an assembly
member in relation to the budget. If she is unavailable, the assembly
itself will fulfil that function, requiring the chair of the assembly
to propose a budget, which the assembly itself could amend by a
two-thirds majority. That explains the
position.
The clause
provides an appropriate check and balance in the budget-setting process
in the event of the Mayor being temporarily unable to
act.
Tom
Brake:
Will the Minister clarify who makes the decision
about whether the Mayor is temporarily
unavailable?
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
We have procedures in respect of the
Standards Board. We are consulting at the moment, and legislation is
going through to amend those purposes. If this is not entirely clear
now, it will be in due course. At present, the Standards Board for
England is empowered to determine whether an elected officer is able to
fulfil their duties and
functions.
Michael
Gove:
I am grateful to the Minister for
his explanation. However, as suggested by the interventions from my
hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central and the hon. Member for
Carshalton and Wallington, that explanation, while fine as far as it
went, begs one or two questions.
On the nature of the
circumstances in which, as my hon. Friend pointed out, both the Mayor
and the deputy Mayor may be unable to act, the Minister said that the
chair of the assembly should be responsible for introducing the budget.
Part of the debate among Government Members was about the importance of
maintaining a pristine distinction between those charged with executive
functions and those who are part of the scrutinising
body.
The
clause makes it clear that when the deputy Mayor is responsible for
introducing the budget, he or she absolves themselves of their assembly
role and takes on a quasi-executive function. What ramifications will
it have for the chair of the assembly if he or she is called upon to
introduce the budget? In the event of the Mayor and the deputy Mayor
being unavailable, at what stage in the budget-setting process will the
chair, who will introduce the budget, have the power to acquire
executive
responsibilities?
We
are pursuing this matter because an attempt is being made to provide
for the eventuality of the Mayor being unable to act. We all appreciate
the importance of the strong-Mayor role, but while the Government are
anxious to ensure that there is a difference or distinction, it seems
that that distinction or difference would be blurred in those
admittedly unlikely but important
circumstances.
Some
clarity or clarification may be helpful on the circumstances under
which the Mayor might be unable to act. The hon. Member for Carshalton
and Wallington drew attention to that implicitly in his intervention.
The Minister explicitly acknowledged the action of the Standards Board,
which deprived the Mayor of his powers a little while ago. While we all
deprecate the circumstances that created that situation, we have to
recognise that the Government have so far been insufficiently clear on
how the
functions—
The
Chairman:
Order. I have been extremely generous, but this
has been an extremely long intervention. The hon. Gentleman is
intervening on the
Minister.
Michael
Gove:
No, Mr. O’Hara, my understanding
is that I am replying to the Minister. Forgive
me.
The
Chairman:
Forgive me.
Michael
Gove:
You would have been absolutely right, Mr.
O’Hara. That would have been an extraordinarily long
intervention and you would have been exceptionally kind to have allowed
it to go thus far.
It
would be useful for the Minister to give some indication as to how
reform of the Standards Board might proceed. I appreciate that he is no
longer at the Department for Communities and Local Government, but it
would be appropriate, given his Front-Bench responsibilities, for him
to give us some information on that.
I come to what would happen if
the Mayor were to become incapacitated for other reasons—for
example, if he were to find himself embroiled in criminal proceedings
or if he were, for whatever reason, to find himself incapable of
discharging the functions of the mayoralty, either physically or
mentally. Conservative Members will later propose a new clause that
deals with the principle of a recall amendment, so I shallnot
go into the details now. It would deal with circumstances in which, in
the view of Londoners, the Mayor was palpably no longer capable of
discharging his duties. It would be helpful if the Minister explained
what would happen—more broadly, and not only with regard to the
budget—if the Mayor was found to be incapable of discharging his
or her duties.
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has
given me a chance to read my notes and perhaps to correct a false
impression that I might have created. Reform of the Standards
Boardis set out in the Local Government and Public Involvement
in Health Bill, which will come forward in due course. If the Mayor and
the deputy Mayor are unavailable, the 1999 Act applies, which means
that the assembly will set the budget. In case there was any confusion
over my response, I should say that we are not changing that
position.
Schedule 4
to the 1999 Act states that if the head of paid service becomes aware
that the Mayor is temporarily unable to act—if he is suspended
or ill—he should give notice to the chair of the assembly and
the deputy Mayor. There is an important distinction to draw to the
attention of the Committee, which is that between a Mayor being
temporarily unable to act and a vacancy in the office of Mayor. If
there is a vacancy, a by-election will be called. A new Mayor might be
elected, who might appoint a new deputy Mayor. If that happened during
the budget-making process, from December to February each year, only
the assembly could provide continuity in that process. We believe that
such continuity is important. We therefore do not intend to change the
current
arrangements.
Question
put and agreed to.
Clause 16 ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
Further
consideration adjourned.—[Jonathan
Shaw.]
Adjourned
accordingly at twenty-three minutes to Seven o’clock till
Thursday 11 January at half-pastNine
o’clock.
| 
