---

Greater London Authority Bill

I do not think that I can improve very much on what my noble friend Lord Harris has said. It is no secret that Amendments Nos. 12, 15, 16 and 19, which have the effect of requiring the consent of the Assembly before the Mayor is able to make an appointment, would overturn the present balance of power. As my noble friend said, this is the beginning of a debate that we will have in relation to the budget, for example, and other aspects where we are considering what it means to have a strong mayoral model. While confirmation hearings are a very important addition to the Assembly’s scrutiny role, and certainly important in assessing the calibre and suitability of candidates, it is absolutely right that the Mayor, as the executive of the GLA, should retain the final say on the appointment. It is a confirmation hearing. Therefore, the Assembly needs to think about how to focus on what it is there to do, which is to scrutinise. We would not want to see any open conflict between the Mayor and the Assembly over who should be appointed by putting the nature of these appointments into the political arena. Amendment No. 17 would enable the Assembly to proceed with a confirmation hearing where the candidate does not attend. We cannot accept this amendment, as it is wholly unnecessary. The Bill defines a confirmation hearing as a meeting at which the candidate is requested to appear to answer Assembly Members’ questions, but the Assembly is not required to hold a confirmation hearing before making a recommendation to the Mayor. It is of course free to meet without the candidate to discuss his or her nomination. Such a meeting would be an ordinary meeting or an ordinary committee of the Assembly; we see no reason to call it a confirmation hearing. We have before us a large issue and a smaller, more technical, issue. I am afraid that I have to resist both amendments.