Greater London Authority Bill

I agree with what the noble Lord said about the importance of the function that London TravelWatch performs and how important safety is to all Londoners who use public transport, but I am afraid that I will have to disappoint him on the first part of his argument. I shall also try to address the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Members of the Committee have become a consolidated opposition, rather like the budget. First, the noble Lord argued that we should ensure that the budget of the LTUC was adequate, protected, and so on, but it is not for the Government but the Assembly to do that. I am sure that the Mayor will listen to the suggestion that he sets that budget as well—a seventh component budget, perhaps. The second argument is that an increase could adversely affect the budgetary ceiling of the Assembly and how it might increase its budget. That is the argument that I can address, explaining why it is technically problematic. I do not believe that it is a significant issue. Clause 13 inserts into Schedule 6 to the Greater London Authority Act 1999 new paragraph 5A(9), allowing the GLA’s chief finance officer to direct that specific amounts should be left out of the calculation for determining the ceiling beyond which the Assembly cannot amend its own budget. That is intended to deal with unusual, one-off, occasional items that would distort the Mayor’s budget. Obviously, the Olympic precept is the best example. The London Transport Users’ Committee does not come into that category, for obvious reasons. Placing a duty on the chief finance officer to have regard to the functions of the Assembly and the LTUC in issuing a direction relating to the Mayor’s budget would have no bearing on its content. That is the explanation that I hope the noble Baroness was seeking. In any event, I do not believe that one should be too exercised about this. Under Clause 12, the LTUC budget forms part of the Assembly’s component budget, but it is a small proportion of the overall budget—less than 20 per cent. Any changes in the LTUC’s budget requirement are unlikely to have a significant bearing on the overall budget for the Assembly. In addition, if any of the LTUC’s statutory duties changed, we would need primary legislation. For example, if it were to take on additional functions, which would imply a bigger budget, primary legislation would be needed to accomplish that. In that case, it would be appropriate to consider funding issues at the same time as the legislation was debated. For those reasons, disappointed though the noble Lord probably is, I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.