Greater London Authority Bill

moved Amendment No. 11: "11: Schedule 1, page 53, line 32, at end insert—""““( ) A copy of the candidate’s application must be attached to the notification.””" The noble Baroness said: The amendment would add a further requirement in the Mayor’s notification to the Assembly of a candidate, that of providing a copy of the candidate’s application. Paragraph 3 of the schedule lists the limited amount of information required: the candidate’s name, address, the office and the reasons for the proposed appointment. The last requirement in the list sounds fine, but it could be quite glib. The Mayor could give very little information about the basis for the appointment. He could say that the candidate was a jolly good chap who had done well in the past. In order to make the confirmation hearing a sensible process, the Assembly needs information on which to base its questions. The application therefore seems a convenient way of providing it. It should give all the necessary background information and would be an easy thing to provide; it would not add to the bureaucratic burden, about which we talk so much and keep saying we shall try to avoid. Perhaps I may explain the amendment by way of setting out a comparable situation which arose last autumn. In September, the Mayor’s office consulted the Assembly chair about a proposed appointment to the board of the London Development Agency. There is currently a limited requirement for some consultation on such an appointment. The Mayor’s office required a response within 12 days. No meeting had been arranged during the period in which the appointment could be considered. As the then deputy chair and the chair of a relevant committee, I wrote to the Mayor’s office seeking information about the individual. I also googled that individual and got quite a bit of information from the website, but frankly that is not the way one should find out about these things: it was more about experience rather than the criteria for the job. The Mayor’s office agreed that the Assembly could have an extra week in which to respond. The Assembly was informed that no one from the London Development Agency took part in the interviews, that there were 80 candidates but only two were interviewed, and that no further information on the nominee would be forthcoming other than an assurance that the LDA worked closely with the GLA in drawing up the application pack. The Assembly responded by saying that it was in no position to give an informed response to the consultation. My letter to the Mayor stated: "““The following questions, which were not directly answered, remain:""1. What particular skills does the proposed appointee have that make her, relative to others, particularly qualified for this position?""2. Noting that the LDA is branded as the ‘Mayor’s Agency for business and jobs’, what skills and expertise does the proposed appointee have in relation to these matters?""3. What particular skills and experience does the proposed appointee have in relation to giving direction to and maintaining oversight of Chief and senior officers in a large organisation, with a large budget, that operates within a political framework?””." I went on to say that: "““We do not wish to imply any negative comment on the overall competency, skills and experience of the individual involved—we are simply in no position to say whether she would be an effective member of the LDA Board””." It might be said that all that information would come out during a confirmation hearing, but it would be much more sensible and efficient to have to hand the basic information before the hearing begins in order to allow questions to be designed to meet the circumstances and to enable the candidate to give of his or her best instead of the rather scatter-gun approach that must be taken if one starts without adequate information. I seek the Government’s understanding that in proposing to add this requirement, there is nothing sinister or bureaucratic about it. It would be a straightforward way of assisting the Assembly to do a good job. I beg to move.