Greater London Authority Bill

I am grateful for those comments, particularly the last ones. I am happy either to meet the Minister myself or for officers from the GLA to meet with her officials in order to discuss the fine-tuning. One cannot expect anyone from outside an organisation to understand the detailed requirements that we either have been lumbered with or, indeed, have lumbered ourselves with. The Minister began by talking about ““undue delay””; I emphasise the word ““undue””. My amendments are neither intended to have nor would have the consequence of creating undue delay. I say that because the word ““delay”” has the connotation of being undesirable whereas what it really means is that taking longer would be the desirable thing to do. After a mayoral and Assembly election—there might be a by-election, but let us assume the normal term of four years—I am not sure how an Assembly would deal with a mayoral proposal that arrives on the desk at lunchtime the next day. Given that the election of the Mayor was declared at around one o’clock after the first election, just in time for the lunchtime news, and that three years ago we did not get out of the building until six or seven in the evening, by that hour the Mayor could have laid several proposals on the desk of the head of paid service. The Assembly is not required to hold its annual meeting, when appointments are made, for 10 days after the election, so there is already a problem built in. That is my instinctive concern about the comments of the noble Baroness. However, I do not want to prolong our discussion in Committee because there may be room for us to come closer together in the detail of what the Minister has indicated. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendments Nos. 15 to 22 not moved.] Schedule 1 agreed to. Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to. Clause 7 [Staff appointed under section 67(2) of the GLA Act 1999]: