Greater London Authority Bill

moved Amendment No. 5: The noble Baroness said: Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 are also in this group, and the noble Baroness has tabled Amendment No. 6 in this group. This group of amendments takes us to confirmation hearings, which are dealt with substantially in the schedule, although these amendments are to the main part of the Bill and deal with the offices to which the new arrangements will apply. It has been said to me that a lot of people are waiting to see the Assembly playing silly buggers with this new power, and I said that I would repeat that, not only as a challenge to Hansard but to refute it before the accusation is made. The Assembly will put standing orders and protocols into place, as it has in connection with all its other responsibilities. The Assembly, of which I have had experience—that personalises the debate—is entirely capable of exercising common sense. It has plenty else to do with its time, and I do not see any Assembly wishing to spend all its time holding confirmation hearings. I was interested to see the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, turn to her officials. I do not know whether she is taking any advice on the term ““silly buggers””. Perhaps she is. The bodies to which the Mayor makes appointments—existing bodies, as well as the new ones, fall within this—will be able to exercise considerable responsibility. Some of these bodies have enormous budgets, so this is a very serious matter. At any rate, the Bill provides, before the Secretary of State makes a further order, that these officers are chairs and deputy chairs. I doubt that any Mayor would be so crass as to appoint as chair or deputy chair an individual who is clearly within his own pocket. However, a Mayor might well appoint someone who has expertise in a subject but who is not terribly strong and is possibly a little naïve and without the political nous that these positions require, and who would be unlikely to be able to resist a cabal among other board members. It could be quite difficult to point to why the appointment of a slightly naïve chair was not desirable. I should make it clear that I am not referring to any current or past office holder. Questioning prospective board members more widely might well bring issues into the public arena, which is what these confirmation hearings are about. The Assembly will make recommendations, but that is as far as it goes. It is the potentially public nature of the event that will be all important. Would the Assembly want to question all candidates? Frankly, as I have said, I do not see it: the Assembly has plenty of other work. If it did go ahead and question all candidates for all board positions, the hearings would very quickly lose the attention of the public and the media. As I have learnt in the past seven years, we are more dependent on the media than I wanted to think when I was first elected. I do believe, however, that the Assembly should have the right to question more widely. The Government say that they want the process to ““bed down””—that is the term that is used. It would be much less controversial if, at this stage, the Government allowed for a range of appointments to come within this procedure, rather than make an order to extend the range after encountering difficulty. So far as I can see, the Government have not yet in Parliament given any reason, other than that of bedding down, why they are not willing to extend this to appointees who, they must accept, could outvote the chair. I was interested to see that London First broadly supports the principle of confirmatory hearings extending to all board members. I do not know whether I am stealing the thunder of the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, if I quote from its briefing, but it says that that will be a useful tool for establishing in public the basis of an individual’s appointment and whether they are appropriately qualified. London First expressed concern about the delay that there might be in establishing a new board at the time of a new mayoralty. That is a fair point. However, in balancing the concerns, I come down very firmly on allowing the Assembly to judge the reasonable way to proceed. Amendment No. 5, as the other amendments do in slightly different ways, broadens the scope of this provision. I beg to move.