Source · Select Committees · Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee
Recommendation 20
20
Paragraph: 155
There is no consensus on the optimum structure for scrutiny in a devolved authority, including...
Recommendation
There is no consensus on the optimum structure for scrutiny in a devolved authority, including as to whether the London Assembly is superior to the existing combined authority structures. The new audit arrangements being introduced by the Government should consider the best way to conduct scrutiny and ensure greater transparency of the budgets of combined authorities. Scrutiny must be on a cross-party basis and scrutiny bodies should reflect this. We reiterate our predecessor committee’s recommendation in 2017 that the Government ensure there is adequate funding of the scrutiny of the metro mayors. We reiterate our predecessor committees’ recommendations in 2013 and 2016 that the London Assembly should receive a forward plan from the Mayor of London, receive call-in powers, and be able to reject the Mayor’s Police and Crime Plan and appointments for deputy mayors. The Government should also examine the case for permitting the London Assembly to scrutinise other aspects of London governance beyond those areas overseen by the mayoral administration.
Paragraph Reference:
155
Government Response
Acknowledged
HM Government
Acknowledged
The Government recognises that there are significant complex challenges facing the existing local audit framework. It is committed to strengthening the local audit system so that it works more effectively for both taxpayers and local authorities, including combined authorities. The response to the public consultation on the system leadership proposals is currently being developed. The government is also working closely with the Financial Reporting Council to establish shadow system leader arrangements for local audit from April 2022. This will enable a swifter and smoother transition towards the new local audit framework. The Government acknowledges the Select Committee’s recommendations and how they build on those made by predecessors in 2013 and 2016 but has no current plans to change policy in these areas. Whilst requiring the mayor to publish a forward plan and providing the Assembly with further call-in powers these powers could strengthen the scrutiny of the Assembly, they also introduce additional bureaucracy and have to be balanced against the benefits of the strong mayoral model in London. The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 established a Police and Crime Commissioner for each police force area across England and Wales outside of London. The Mayor of London – as occupant of the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC) – is required by law to produce a Police and Crime Plan setting out their strategic police and crime objectives. In 2011 it was decided that arrangements in London would be aligned with the arrangements for Police and Crime Commissioners. The London Assembly Police & Crime Committee has an important role in reviewing the Mayor’s Police & Crime Plan, with the mayor being required to have regard to any report or recommendation from the Panel in relation to the issuing or variation of the Police & Crime Plan. This is consistent with the role and powers of Police & Crime Panels across England and Wales. Government is not currently looking at changing the existing veto arrangements of the London Assembly in relation to deputy mayors. At present the London Assembly is employed to scrutinise the London Mayor and this includes the scrutiny of police and transport through the Mayoral role. Other aspects of London governance are managed through London council governance arrangements.