Greater London Authority Bill

I believe that we made similar arguments in respect of the budget. The Mayor has responsibility for the total component budget and the Assembly’s role is to challenge the headline figures. It does not get involved in discussing the detailed scrutiny, which is a job for the component bodies. That is the case I was going to go on to make, which is where the analogy breaks down. The problem is that the Assembly is able to amend only the totals because the detail of what has been determined for the individual parts of the budget is left to the constituent body. The problem is that this amendment would allow the Assembly to amend each strategy to any level of detail and strategies do not have headline budgets in the same way. They are not equivalent to the component budget totals, so the Assembly could not do anything but get involved in the detailed determination of policy. Therefore, how could it be both judge and jury? How could it scrutinise effectively what it has already challenged and even predetermined? There is a genuine confusion of what could be achieved. I do not think that it is too extreme to say that it would be rather chaotic. Let us go back to where we started this debate and the need to give the Assembly more confidence and a greater power of scrutiny. On day 1 in Committee, we discussed Clause 2, which was welcomed, as it was elsewhere. Clause 2 provides a strengthened role for the Assembly in strategy development. The Mayor will be under a new duty to have regard to Assembly responses to consultation and must write to explain which of its recommendations he will implement and give reasons for those he does not accept. That takes the Assembly into a new area of challenge and scrutiny where it has not been before. In this delicate balance of power, I believe that that is the right way to go and is the best balance to hold. The amendment, although superficially attractive, brings with it not least the arguments made by my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours, but some genuine difficulties. Although I commend my noble friend Lord Harris for his originality and determination to promote this important argument, I cannot agree with him. I therefore ask him to withdraw his amendment.