Greater London Authority Bill

I have been listening to this debate with great interest. Some of it takes me back to my local government days, which are more years ago than I can remember, before I lost my seat. I have one question, which I hope will not be regarded as entirely frivolous. In new Section 68(3) we have ““chairman””, ““chairman”” and ““chairman”” until we come to the cultural strategy group, where the Bill refers to a chair. I am not one of those who takes all references to a chair of a meeting as an example of furniturism, although I have heard that said, but I am inquisitive why that particular post is referred to as the chair when all the rest refer to the chairman. I have always taken the view that it is open to the holder of the office to decide how he or she wishes to be referred to. Was it thought at one stage that this particular cultural strategy group would always have a lady chairman? If so, that seems jolly unfair on the men because there are some very good cultural men about. I do not count myself as one of them, but I would be interested to know why this particular one is referred to as a ““chair””.