Greater London Authority Bill

Again, this has been a very interesting debate. The Government believe that the new confirmation hearings will provide an important and potentially very exciting new role for the Assembly. As my noble friend Lord Harris has just picked up, this is a key area where an extension of the role of the Assembly could work very well. They would enable the Assembly to undertake thorough and public scrutiny of the key appointments the Mayor is required to make—the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, stressed the importance of the public nature of the confirmation hearings and the potential role of the media—to establish the scrutiny and to scrutinise the suitability of a candidate for the appointment, and, most importantly, to challenge an appointment if necessary before the Mayor takes his final decision. The list of offices to which confirmation hearings apply are set out at Clause 4. The process for undertaking the hearings, which I expect we will discuss further in a moment, are set out in Schedule 1. That creates a robust framework for the Assembly to really make a success of this new role. That is the key point for the Government. They believe that these provisions provide the right framework and balance of discretion and prescription to ensure the success of the confirmation hearings process. The amendments tabled by noble Lords opposite, in contrast, cut directly across what we see as the key principle that underpins the new process—that confirmation hearings apply to the key appointments the Mayor is required to make, and that this is the right place to start. The Government, therefore, wish to resist the amendments. I should like to explain in perhaps a little detail why that is so. Amendments Nos. 5 to 8 would extend the list of offices to which confirmation hearings would apply. Amendment No. 5 extends the list to include any statutory appointment the Mayor makes. Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 would include the GLA’s health adviser and deputy health adviser and the Mayor’s appointments to the Board of Governors of the Museum of London respectively. Amendment No. 8 seeks to include mayoral appointments to the London regional council of Arts Council England, the English Sports Council, London regional sports board and Archives, Libraries and Museums London. For technical reasons, Amendment No. 8 does not achieve that, but we understand where that amendment is coming from. The amendments would extend the number of offices to which confirmation hearings can apply to well over 100 in total. I fully appreciate the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that this would not necessarily mean the Assembly undertaking over 100 confirmation hearings and that it would be able to pick and choose which prospective appointments would benefit most from a confirmation hearing being held. We cannot agree that that would be a better approach than what is outlined in the Bill. Surely, the most sensible introduction for the Assembly to this new role is to focus on those appointments which have the greatest influence over delivery. Particularly with regard to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about media interest, it would be a disappointment if these confirmation hearings were not to attract considerable interest and attention and therefore to focus on the greatest influence over delivery and the appointment of chairs and deputy chairs of the functional bodies; that is, to the boards of Transport for London, the London Development Agency, the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority and the Metropolitan Police Authority. Extending the scope of the Assembly’s role to any mayoral appointment risks spreading the net too widely before the Assembly has been able to make a real success of this new role. The question was asked whether it is more than encouraging the Assembly to allow this to bed down. There are some complicating factors in enabling confirmation hearings to apply to all mayoral appointments. For some organisations, such as the Metropolitan Police Authority and the Museum of London, the Mayor appoints only a proportion of board members. These amendments would apply the confirmation hearing process to some of the board members but not to others. Other mayoral appointments are subject to the approval of the Secretary of State; for example, members of the new London Skills and Employment Board. We do not believe that confirmation hearings would be appropriate given that line of accountability. Confirmation hearings should apply to the most important appointments the Mayor is required to make. These appointments are set out in the Bill. This is a new and potentially very important and exciting role for the Assembly. We would like to see the process bed down and for the Assembly to make a success of its new role before considering the case for increasing the number of mayoral appointments, to which confirmation hearings apply. As my noble friend Lord Harris pointed out, Clause 4 includes provision for the Secretary of State by order to specify further offices which may be subject to confirmation hearings. That provides sufficient flexibility to amend the list of offices in the future, should that be required. Therefore, I hope that noble Lords will feel able to withdraw the amendments.