The Role Of Scrutiny In Budget, Triumphant Or Otherwise

Written by Sally Hamwee on Thu 14th Feb 2002

"The role of scrutiny in Budget, triumphant or otherwise." It might have had a question mark, as the topic posed just before the setting of the Greater London Authority budget and its precept.

The London Assembly can bark 364 days a year, and on the 365th it can bite – but only after procedures which take up four pages of legislation, and considerably more in explanation by our legal department. The Mayor proposes a budget, has to respond to amendments by the Assembly (passed by a simple majority), though he need not actually alter his proposals – and the Assembly can amend his final budget but only by agreeing an alternative by a majority of two-thirds of those voting. With me so far?

Add to this the ingredient of a 25 strong Assembly split politically (and rarely do the political splits show more than at budget time) 9 / 9 / 4 / 3, and you can see the difficulty.

I do think the scrutiny process has been, if not triumphant, at least effective. Of course it's year-long. We monitor the performance of the "functional bodies" (the police and fire authorities, the development agency and Transport for London) as well as the central organisation, and an unexpectedly large part of our work has been examining the financial management culture particularly in the police and transport bodies.

Where central government was previously responsible, management seems a little explored concept. We've had to try to get to the bottom of what the authorities are capable of spending (we're all familiar with slippage), and the sometimes painful introduction of business plans and performance targets. And all this openly and transparently – in this technological age the questioning is sometimes broadcast or webcast, and all the transcripts (verbatim when we are taking evidence) are on our website. Accountability is about process as well as outcome.

The Mayor's original plans were knocked back by the Assembly at the first stage. Each group proposed its own amendment, and when none commanded a majority the Liberal Democrat and Labour groups combined – the Tories went lower, the Greens higher. The Mayor came back with some slightly sour comments about the Budget Committee asking too many, and the wrong, questions, and a budget that was not, in cash terms, far from that joint amendment.

A majority accepted it - £23 extra precept instead of the original £53. Yes, of course, only 44p a week (the price of a walnut whip, as were relentlessly reminded) – but an increase from this year of 15% (a lot, but London's public services need it) instead of the 35% he had wanted.

"Not ideal" said the Mayor. As my colleague Graham Tope said, can anyone in local government remember when they were last able to set an ideal budget?

But a postscript: the Mayor does not yet have control of the Underground, and we're unconvinced that the government will pass it over with a dowry adequate to meet its huge liabilities. They announced the handover 2 days after a damning report on the PPP by the Transport Select Committee. Not a lot of notice taken of their own scrutiny body.