Greater London Authority Bill

I fully appreciate what the noble Baroness is trying to do in the amendments, which seek, as she says, to improve the process. One cannot but have some sympathy with Amendment No. 14 in particular, because it seeks to extend the length of time in which the Assembly can make a recommendation to the Mayor from three weeks to six weeks following an election. It is understandable that the Assembly might wish to take longer to consider recommendations following a GLA election. We all know the upheaval that elections bring about. The trouble is that we must ensure—this is equally important—that confirmation hearings do not add undue delay. The noble Baroness said herself that it was not desirable to prolong processes. The point, however, is that these processes are about appointing candidates to senior posts, and there is a clear risk, should a vacancy arise during an election period, that a Mayor would reasonably wish to delay making an appointment until after the election; so there is already some delay built in. Extending the period in which the Assembly may make an appointment would add further delay. We have been looking at the prospect of an extended vacancy right at the heart of the key service delivery organisations, such as TfL or the LDA. The noble Baroness took us through some of these processes, and it is interesting to hear how the Assembly works, but we see no strong reason why, immediately following an election, the Assembly could not convene a committee to undertake a confirmation hearing and make a recommendation. There may be better ways of doing this than the way proposed by the noble Baroness, which would lead to undue delay. We therefore cannot accept Amendment No. 14. Amendment No. 18 would reduce the notice period given to the candidate before a confirmation hearing from one week to three working days. That strikes us as unreasonable in relation to general practice. It is a very short notice period. One week is a reasonable notice period, as it enables a candidate to prepare for a hearing. Three days is not long enough for a serious experience that can be rather formidable. Amendment No. 20 would place a duty on the candidate to answer the Assembly’s questions at a confirmation hearing or, if this is impractical, to provide a written answer within three working days of the hearing. We consider this amendment to be unnecessary, because, irrespective of what the previous Act provides, the Assembly can surely draw its own conclusions in the event of a candidate refusing to answer certain questions or their inability to provide sufficiently robust answers. I would have thought that that was pretty central to any appointments procedure. We do not want to place unnecessary burdens on candidates, only to deter them. Therefore, we cannot accept Amendment No. 20. I am, however, more sympathetic to Amendments Nos. 21 and 22, which would enable a single Member of the Assembly to decide whether a confirmation hearing should take place. The Bill currently provides for only the Assembly or an ordinary committee of the Assembly to undertake functions in relation to confirmation hearings. There is a good argument in favour of ensuring that a group of Assembly Members decide whether to hold a confirmation hearing, only because it could have such great media interest. It may be appropriate in such circumstances for a group of Assembly Members, rather than a single Member, to decide whether a confirmation hearing should take place. We accept the argument that, in certain circumstances, the Assembly may be best placed to delegate that decision to a single Assembly Member. We therefore welcome the opportunity to take away Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 and think about them further.