Greater London Authority Bill

Clause 49 inserts new Section 401A into the Greater London Authority Act 1999, which relates to the provision of administrative, professional or technical services—what might be called back-office services. That is in no way intended to be a derogatory term. Having run a charity for many years, I know how extremely important the work that people described as back-office providers do is. It enables any one of the five constituent bodies in the GLA group—the GLA itself and any of the four functional bodies—to provide back-office services to any of the others, or to receive those services from any of the others. It also allows those bodies to share such functions by establishing joint committees. That change clarifies the current provision for delegating functions between bodies in the GLA group: provisions which are inconsistent between the five bodies. It also puts the GLA group on a level footing with local authorities generally, which may arrange for any one or more of their functions to be discharged by another local authority. We believe that that will encourage more collaborative working within the GLA group and encourage efficiency savings by streamlining back-office services such as legal, payroll, IT or publishing and printing services. I am sure that the Committee will agree that that is positive. Amendment No. 116, tabled by the noble Baroness, would insert into Clause 49 additional duties on any constituent body—the GLA or any functional body—in delegating back-office functions to each other. Specifically, new subsection (8) would place a duty on constituent bodies to have regard to the needs and requirements of the constituent bodies with whom they are entering into an arrangement in respect of delivering back-office functions. New 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 and new subsection (10) defines both the Mayor and Assembly as constituent bodies, rather than the GLA as a whole. Its effect would be explicitly to require the Mayor to have regard to the Assembly in respect to back-office functions before entering into an agreement with a functional body. We simply do not agree that we need to legislate at that level of detail. Any arrangement between two constituent bodies that one discharges a back-office function on behalf of the other would be made only with the agreement of both bodies concerned. If both parties agree to the delegation of function, it is safe to presume that the recipient body has had regard to the needs and requirements of the donor body. Similarly, I cannot imagine a Mayor agreeing to take on a functional body’s back-office functions without reaching agreement with that body on the level of resources needed to carry out the function. Surely, when the Mayor and Assembly set a functional body’s budget, they will take into account any transfer of back-office functions. The Government believe that it is preferable to treat the GLA as a single constituent body, rather than to divide its interests between the Mayor and the Assembly. It is normal practice for the Mayor and Assembly to share back-office functions. Clause 49 requires the Mayor to consult the Assembly before entering any arrangement for the GLA to delegate, or take on, functional bodies’ back-office functions. In doing so, it is implicit that the Mayor will have regard to the needs of the Assembly in deciding his course of action. I do not envisage a Mayor pressing ahead in delegating City Hall functions to a functional body in the face of concerted Assembly opposition. Of course, the Assembly can agree protocols or service level agreements with any functional body that provides a back-office function for the GLA. That could be the appropriate mechanism for the Assembly, and the Mayor, to define the level and quality of service that it wants the functional body to provide. With these reassurances, I hope that the noble Baroness will consider withdrawing her amendment. Government Amendment No. 116A is the third government amendment moved in response to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s consideration of the Bill. New Section 401A(7) provides for the Secretary of State, by order, to extend or restrict the services or functions to which the section applies. This order is currently subject to the negative resolution procedure. The amendment instead makes any order subject to affirmative resolution.