Clause 4
Greater London Authority Bill
10:45 am
Tom Brake (Shadow Minister, Department for Communities and Local Government; Carshalton and Wallington, Liberal Democrat)
The Minister will note that we are being true to our word in not delaying proceedings. My only concern is that we are perhaps moving too fast in respect of the notes that I prepared.
The power to make appointments to London-wide public bodies is a key way for the Mayor to exert influence in the capital. Clause 4 is therefore welcome for introducing much greater accountability and transparency to the appointments process. However, the Bill is overly hesitant, as the new power will apply to only 10 key mayoral appointments, which leaves more than 70 additional unelected senior posts in key public bodies to which the Mayor could make appointments without any public oversight by the assembly.
Those public bodies are responsible for setting strategic priorities, delivering key services and spending billions of pounds of London taxpayers’ money. We welcome the fact that the Bill concedes the usefulness of confirmation hearings in principle, but it is not clear why that principle should not be extended to all mayoral appointments to public bodies in London. The public should have confidence that all mayoral appointments are made on the basis of merit and not as a reward for political loyalty or as an act of unaccountable mayoral patronage.
The amendments would not grant the assembly the power of veto over the Mayor’s powers of appointment, so the Mayor could still appoint. That would not be an issue. The assembly’s recommendations would not be binding, but they would provide an opportunity to focus public scrutiny on the credentials of the candidates for key public posts in London, which would provide an important test of the credibility and fitness to hold public office of the proposed appointees. That is the purpose of the amendments, which also have the support of the official Opposition.
London assembly members agree with me that it is important that these key amendments are accepted in Committee. They all have the unanimous support of all the political parties in the London assembly. Confirmation hearings are a new concept in this country and Parliament has a responsibility to get this right first time. Amendments Nos. 7 to 14 and 37 would extend the power to hold confirmation hearings to members other than chairs and deputy chairs and to the Museum of London, the Mayor’s cultural strategy group and the Learning and Skills Council.
Appointments to the boards of those bodies are worthy of the same scrutiny. For example, the Museum of London is at the heart of London. It is visited by more than 100,000 schoolchildren every year and it reinforces their sense of the history of London, their citizenship and their sense of belonging to the city. The Museum of London website is promoting an interesting initiative this year: people can buy any year of London’s history between 1666 and 2012, although I am not sure who they are buying it from. The Mayor has gone for 2012, for obvious reasons.
I point out to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath the fact that 1979 is still available for those who want to celebrate the coming to power of Margaret Thatcher. I understand from a transcript of a recent interview that the hon. Gentleman believes that she did nearly everything right and was a heroic character.