Clause
3
The
Mayor’s periodic report to the
Assembly
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
The 1999 Act requires the assembly to hold 10
meetings a year to consider written reports submitted by the Mayor for
each meeting and to put written or oral questions to the Mayor. The
Mayor must submit his report to the assembly at least three clear
working days before each meeting. Clause 3 amends that deadline to
require the Mayor to submit
his report to the assembly at least five clear working days before each
assembly meeting. That will give the assembly more time to consider the
Mayor’s report before he appears before it to answer
questions.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Clause 3
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
4
Confirmation
hearings etc for certain appointments by the
Mayor
Tom
Brake:
I beg to move amendment No. 7, in
clause 4, page 3, line 13, after
second ‘chairman’, insert ‘, or any
member’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments:
No. 8, in
clause 4, page 3, line 15, after
second ‘chairman’, insert ‘, or any
member’.
No. 9,
in
clause 4, page 3, line 18, after
second ‘chairman’, insert ‘, or any
member’.
No.
10, in
clause 4, page 3, line 20, after
‘chairman’, insert ‘, or any
member,’.
No.
11, in
clause 4, page 3, line 22, after
‘chair’, insert ‘, or any
member,’.
No.
12, in
clause 4, page 3, line 24, after
second ‘chairman’, insert ‘, or any
member’.
No.
13, in
clause 4, page 3, line 25, at
end
insert—
‘members
of the Board of Governors of the Museum of London appointed by the
Greater London Authority under the Museum of London Act 1965 (c.
17).’.
No. 14,
in
clause 4, page 3, line 25, at
end
insert—
‘members
appointed under section
377A.’.
No. 37,
in
clause 4, page 3, line 25, at
end insert—
‘any
member of a body established under section 24B of the Learning and
Skills Act 2000
(c.21).’.
No.
38, in
clause 4, page 3, line 31, at
end insert—
‘(6) Before
making an order under subsection (5), the Secretary of State
shall—
(a) consult the
Mayor and Assembly, and
(b)
have regard to any views expressed by
them.’.
Tom
Brake:
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.
Michael
Gove:
Will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether 1983 is
available? That is when Aberdeen won the European Cup Winner’s
cup in Gothenburg, beating Real Madrid
2-1.
Tom
Brake:
I have absolutely no idea, but the hon. Gentleman
can look on the website, which clearly indicates which years are for
sale.
The amendments
are necessary to prevent the inconsistency of the chair of a body being
subject to a confirmation hearing, but not his or her immediate
subordinates. Such a chair might be undermined by the Mayor’s
appointees, who would not be subject to the same scrutiny by the
assembly.
In a recent
meeting, London First expressed concern that if this amendment were
supported by the Government and adopted, that would lead to London
grinding to a halt when a new Mayor was elected,
because of the need to carry out a large number of confirmation
hearings. It is worth stressing again that the amendment would provide
such a power, but that that power would not have to be exercised except
when the appointment of a board member was deemed to be particularly
controversial. Many of the board posts are four-yearly; confirmation
hearings would therefore not be an annual event for 77 posts. In most
cases, they would happen only every four years, and only if there was a
need for that greater
scrutiny. Amendment
No. 38 would require the Secretary of State to consult the assembly and
the Mayor before making an order that amended the list of appointments
that are subject to confirmation hearings. I hope that the Minister
understands why the assembly and the Mayor would want an opportunity to
comment on any such proposals or changes put forward by the Secretary
of State. This is a standard provision for secondary legislation that
relates to specific bodies, and it clearly makes
sense.
I consider, as
I hope the official Opposition do, that the amendment would strengthen
the Government’s case for improved scrutiny and transparency in
the appointments process. I hope that the Minister is willing to take
on board those very minor
changes.
Robert
Neill:
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship,
Mr. O’Hara. Having extended one set of apologies, I
would like to say that I am glad that, for once, it was not the
Minister or me who brought football into the discussion. In case I have
not formally declared it, I remind everyone of my involvement as a
member of the London assembly. I do not think that the clause has any
effect on any potential conflict of interest or any financial
matter.
First, I
would like to give an example to reinforce a point made by the hon.
Member for Carshalton and Wallington. The boards, such as those of
Transport for London, have executive power. As Labour Members will
know, the Mayor sought to push forward a scheme for the Thames Gateway
bridge, which was approved only by a very narrow majority of the board
of Transport for London. There was a prospect—I think there were
only one or two votes in it—that the board would come to a
conclusion different from the Mayor’s. In those circumstances,
it is not unreasonable that there should be an opportunity for the
assembly to know where potential nominees to the board of Transport for
London are coming from on an issue of such significance, which might
have indicated a potential difference of political opinion between the
Mayor and those whom he was nominating to the board. It would have been
useful and desirable to know that in
advance.
Secondly, the
principle is excellent, and I am grateful to the Minister for listening
to the assembly and taking on board what it said. This a matter that we
raised with him, so I have no problem with it, and what I say is
intended to be wholly constructive. I understand that the names and
posts listed are an initial attempt, but within the Mayor’s
administration, the nature of which may change under this Mayor or in
future, there are other posts of huge significance. It is not
disrespectful to post holders named here to suggest that the
Mayor’s policy directors, who are not subject to any scrutiny,
exercise hugely more power and receive significantly greater
remuneration than they do. People such as Redmond O’Neill and
John Ross are well known as powerful figures in the Mayor’s
administration.
There
is nothing wrong with that—no criticism—but if we are
scrutinising the nominees for chairman of the cultural
strategy group, should there not be the opportunity to consider other
powerful posts, on the board of Transport for London or beyond, that
exercise as much influence on the direction of mayoral policy as any of
the posts listed in the clause? In that constructive spirit, I support
the
amendment.
11
am
Stephen
Pound:
Will the hon. Gentleman give
way?
Robert
Neill:
I am always happy to give way to the hon.
Gentleman. [Interruption.] I am so naive and
innocent.
Stephen
Pound:
The words naive and innocent have never been
associated with Bromley and Chislehurst in the past or the
present.
I
am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman’s argument, which is
logical up to a point. Does he envisage a cut-off point on financial
levels? Is he talking about every employer above a certain salary
level, or is he categorising by service head or job description? Which
group of people is he talking
about?
Robert
Neill:
I was not seeking to go into particular financial
cut-off points, but I was using an example. The public will be aware of
the significant power and influence that is exercised, the effect on
the budget—I put no more emphasis on it than that—in
policy terms and the profile of many people who influence the
administration but who are not on the list in the clause. That is my
point.
Tom
Brake:
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the core group
of people comprises the chair, deputy chair and governors or board
members of the key functional bodies, such as the Museum of London? We
are considering in total 77
people.
Robert
Neill:
The hon. Gentleman is right. The assembly
recognised, when it sought to support an extension along the lines of
the amendment, that it would not always be desirable to scrutinise
every nominee who fell within the potential heads and that, in
practice, the measure would be self-limiting. It is worth remembering
that there was widespread cross-party support for that in the assembly.
This is not a narrow, partisan position. The opportunity for scrutiny
should be included, as the hon. Gentleman has rightly said. The
amendment would strengthen the principle that the Minister and his
colleagues are seeking to introduce and would have a fair wind of
support from all parties in the assembly, which is a good thing that
will enable it to work better, as we all
want.
Michael
Gove:
I support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member
for Carshalton and Wallington and echo some of the sentiments expressed
so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and
Chislehurst.
The principle of confirmation
hearings may seem, at first glance, new to the British constitution and
is something that we more commonly associate with the American system
with its powerful Senate Committees. On the selection of Supreme Court
judges or cabinet appointees in America, Senate Committees can
scrutinise the records of those who are being appointed to important
public offices and, if necessary, recommend their refusal. That
principle is hallowed in America and has increasingly been adopted here
in the United Kingdom. One striking example of its adoption is in
respect of members of the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of
England.
With the
decision of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make the Bank of England
independent—probably his first and perhaps his last good
decision—came an acknowledgement that this arm’s length
devolution of power from the Executive should be accompanied by
enhanced parliamentary scrutiny. That is why, when any new member of
the MPC is put forward by the Chancellor and nominated to that body,
the confirmation process takes place and Treasury Committee members
have an opportunity to quiz them to assess their suitability for office
and, importantly, to gauge their position on various issues to ensure
that the MPC is balanced. We recognise that, in developing an
appropriate counter-inflation strategy for this country, the mix of
expertise, background and views matters. There is an established
parliamentary precedent as well as an established international
precedent for confirmation hearings. We welcome the fact that
confirmation hearings should be extended to the
GLA.
As the hon.
Member for Carshalton and Wallington has pointed out, many of the
people who are appointed by the Mayor are responsible for huge budgets.
The functional bodies—Transport for London, the London
Development Agency and the Metropolitan Police Authority—are
responsible for millions of pounds of public money. They are
responsible, furthermore, for the discharge of services that intimately
affect the lives of all Londoners. In the case of the Metropolitan
Police Authority it is not only Londoners who are affected, because the
MPA is the lead police force in dealing with anti-terrorism, royal
protection and other vital security matters. So the people who are
appointed to the MPA have a role, a status, an influence and a
responsibility that extends beyond London’s boundaries, and the
idea of introducing greater transparency, accountability and scrutiny
into such appointments is one that we wholeheartedly
welcome.
As the hon.
Member for Carshalton and Wallington has pointed out, however, there is
a flaw in the Government proposal, because the Government seem to have
embraced the idea of confirmation hearings yet flinched from the full
consequences of their logic. The Government proposal would allow
confirmation hearings only for chairmen or deputy chairmen of the
respective bodies. It is important to appreciate that, although those
figures are the most important, they are not the only important
figures. Many of those appointed to other roles—to the MPA, for
instance—can exercise significant influence. An example would be
the position occupied by Mr. Peter Herbert, who sits on the
MPA and who is not elected but directly appointed. He is a figure whose
past record at the
Greater London Council and elsewhere might give rise to concerns on the
part of some people about his views and how those views might affect
the discharge of the MPA’s responsibilities. I myself cast no
aspersions on his suitability for the office—on the evidence
that has come to me, he has discharged his responsibilities in an
exemplary fashion. At the time of his appointment, however, it was
understandable that some people might have taken a moment to express
concern, and at some point in the future the Mayor might wish to
appoint to Transport for London, or to the LDA or MPA, individuals
below the level of chair or deputy chair whose views or
responsibilities might cause the public to wonder why there is not more
scrutiny.
Ms
Karen Buck (Regent's Park and Kensington, North) (Lab): I
am slightly confused by the hon. Gentleman’s argument. He is
drawing parallels with the MPC. However, is it not part of the point of
having confirmation hearings that the authority is not an executive
one? It is precisely because the Mayor has executive power that it is
not comparable. The Mayor is also subject to the scrutiny of the
electoral process, so going beyond key appointments is an entirely
unnecessary level of
intervention.
Michael
Gove:
It is interesting to hear the hon. Lady make that
point, because she is arguing in effect against Londoners being given
more information on how they are governed and on who governs them. The
whole point of the confirmation hearing and of the amendment is that
with every appointment made to such bodies, there should be an
opportunity for accountable public debate on who is appointed. Whenever
the Mayor makes a nomination at the moment, there can, of course, be
external scrutiny by the press, or in this House, and questions can be
raised. We seek to ensure that the process is regularised and
formalised, and that there is an appropriate way to ensure that due
process is followed. If the current Mayor, or any future Mayor, is
confident that he is appointing the best men and women, he should not
fear scrutiny or a confirmation hearing. In fact, a hearing would only
bolster public confidence in the way in which London is governed and in
the way in which the Mayor makes such decisions. I see no argument for
decreasing scrutiny or
transparency.
Ms
Buck:
The term that the hon. Gentleman has missed out from
his list is “extension”. It is not that key appointments
should not be properly scrutinised, but that a balance must be struck
when someone—in this case, the Mayor—has executive
authority that allows them to retain that authority. That balance must
maintain public confidence in a number of ways, including hearings for
key posts, but it must not over-egg the pudding by extending hearings
right down to the most junior staff members, as the hon. Gentleman has
suggested.
Michael
Gove:
Again, I think that the hon. Lady has misunderstood
both the spirit and the letter of the amendment. We are not suggesting
scrutiny of the most junior staff members, such as junior aides or
administrative assistants. We are talking principally about the members
of functional bodies. My hon.
Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has pointed out that some
individuals in other senior posts in the Mayor’s establishment
have responsibilities ranking, in terms of influence and reach, with
those of members of functional bodies.
I shall draw an example to the
attention of the hon. Lady and the Committee. The chair and deputy
chair of one of the functional bodies may well go through the scrutiny
process, but those two individuals’ freedom of action could be
undermined by the appointment at a future Mayor’s behest of
other members who work against them. To those people who say,
“Oh, the very idea! Imagine the authority of the head of a
London-wide body being subverted from within,” I say remember
what happened to Lord McIntosh many years ago, when another figure
managed to subvert from within. There is a precedent in London
governance for the head of an organisation to find that others burrow
from within to subvert his authority. Talking of
burrowing—
Stephen
Pound:
During his time in this House, the hon. Gentleman
has earned himself a reputation as a skilled forensic scientist, and
his language is normally very precise. He used the word
“principally” in the context of the amendment.
Unfortunately, that word is loose and ill-defined. It worries us that
he seems to be opening up the provisions to a limitless number of
people. Will he remove the word “principally” and
concentrate on precisely those grades of staff to which he is
referring?
Michael
Gove:
The hon. Gentleman has allowed himself to be
confused by some of the—how can I put this?
[Interruption.] No, no. The word that I was searching for is
“chaff”. He has allowed himself to be confused by the
chaff thrown up by the hon. Member for Regent’s Park and
Kensington, North. The amendment is precise. I am grateful to the hon.
Member for Carshalton and Wallington for framing it, because it is
perfectly clear to whom it would apply. It would apply precisely to
members of functional bodies and extend to the Museum of London,
because that is an existing body to which the Mayor will have a new
right to appoint
governance.
It is
entirely precise whom the amendment would cover. My hon. Friend the
Member for Bromley and Chislehurst pointed out what is no more than a
matter of fact—that other individuals appointed by the Mayor
have significant powers—but all that the amendment seeks to do
is ensure that other members of functional bodies appointed by the
Mayor are subject to the confirmation
process.
Tom
Brake:
It is clear that Government Members have a degree
of support for the proposed measures, but they are seeking clarity as
to which people will be affected. Perhaps we can come to an agreement
that we are literally talking only about the seven individuals who will
serve on the different boards. The amendment sets that out clearly. If
hon. Members would consider it more carefully than they have so far,
they will see to which boards we are referring. It is very
clear.
Michael
Gove:
The hon. Gentleman has amplified and underlined my
point. We have not only numbered but listed the precise appointments.
If it is not clear after reading the amendment, I suggest that the hon.
Members for Regent’s Park and Kensington, North and for Ealing,
North talk to the Labour members of the Greater London Assembly who
support the proposed measures.
One of the striking things
about the amendment is that it has the support of every Member of the
GLA. Why? Because all of them, whatever their ideological views,
recognise that the principal role envisaged for the GLA when it was
established was scrutiny. The principal function of a scrutinising body
is to scrutinise how public money is spent. The principal bodies that
spend public money in London at the Mayor’s behest are the
functional bodies, and the principal individuals who are responsible
for spending that money are members of the board. Four sets of
principles are at the heart of the
amendment.
11.15
am
I
hope that the Minister will listen to his colleagues on the Greater
London assembly, who are entirely in favour of the extension of the
confirmation process from those figures named under the legislation to
those figures named under our amendment. If he does, he not only will
win the support and applause of Conservative and Liberal Democrat
Members of Parliament, but—this will come sweeter to his
ear—he will win the applause of those hard-working Labour
members of the GLA who want to work even harder in the interests of
Londoners by scrutinising the Mayor’s
work.
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
I take the point made by the hon. Member for
Carshalton and Wallington about getting ahead of ourselves. I am sure
that the Government Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and
Aylesford, via the usual channels and you, Mr.
O’Hara, can reassure us that that will not be the case. I also
acknowledge the experience that the hon. Member for Bromley and
Chislehurst brings to the Committee as a serving member of the GLA.
However, that does not mean that we shall accept the conclusions that
he has drawn from his time
there.
Confirmation
hearings will provide the assembly with an important and exciting new
power that its members could use to good effect. They will allow
assembly members to scrutinise appointments that the Mayor intends to
make; they will assist in assessing the calibre of candidates and their
suitability for appointment; and they will enable assembly members to
establish candidates’ plans for their new roles and, if
necessary, to challenge an appointment before the Mayor makes his final
decision.
We have
great difficulty with amendments Nos. 7 to 14 and amendment No. 37,
which seek to specify further offices to which confirmation hearings
may apply, which is neither necessary nor desirable at this stage. We
believe that it is sensible to allow the new process to bed down and
for the assembly to make a success of its new role before considering
whether to extend the list of offices to which the hearings may apply.
We propose that the assembly should initially
concentrate on scrutinising the most important appointments that the
Mayor makes—those that have the greatest influence on delivery,
particularly the chairs and deputy chairs of the functional
bodies.
The
amendments would result in the assembly being faced with a bewildering
array of offices—our calculations indicate that it would be more
than 100 offices. I acknowledge that the calculations by the hon.
Member for Carshalton and Wallington have produced a different figure,
but none the less there would be a greater number of offices on which
to decide whether to hold a confirmation hearing. We are not setting in
stone the number of offices subject to confirmation hearings. Clause 4
provides for the Secretary of State to specify further offices by
order, should she wish to do so. Should the need arise, it provides the
flexibility to extend the list of offices without the requirement for
primary legislation.
I
am grateful to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington for
explaining amendment No. 38. It seems sensible that, should the
Secretary of State wish to consider further offices being subject to
confirmation hearings, she should seek the views of the Mayor and the
assembly before deciding on an appropriate course of action. However, I
do not believe it necessary that the Bill should require the Secretary
of State to have regard to the views of the Mayor and the assembly, but
I welcome the opportunity to consider the amendment more carefully to
see whether we can introduce a suitably drafted proposal at a later
stage.
Stephen
Pound:
On that point, and in the spirit of the search for
clarity and consensus, which is so typical of the Committee, I draw
attention to amendments Nos. 9 and 10, which refer to the MPA and the
London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority. If we are to extend the
measure beyond the two titular roles, who will do the confirmations?
Will not the members be interviewing themselves? Has my hon. Friend
given any thought to
that?
Jim
Fitzpatrick:
We certainly have. Government officials have
looked at all the functional bodies and those members who are appointed
by the Mayor as opposed to those who are appointed by the boards and
Secretaries of State that make up a variety of different categories.
That is why we are suggesting that it is not appropriate to extend
matters beyond the chairs and vice-chairs, but the issue could be
revisited in due course to see whether there should be an extension of
hearings for appropriate members. The maximum number of appointments
that we calculate from the bodies mentioned in the amendments is 135,
and I can certainly share where we have got that information from with
the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington. With that assurance in
respect of amendment No. 38, I hope that he will not press it now.
However, we do not accept the other amendments, which we ask to be
withdrawn.
Tom
Brake:
I thank the Minister for his response, and his
indication that the Government are proposing to move forward with a
draft amendment at a later stage to amendment No. 38, which relates to
the Secretary of State. I am sure that the official Opposition thank
him as well, because that is clearly helpful.
I am disappointed that on the
real substance of this debate, the confirmation hearings, I have heard
nothing from the Minister to explain why the Government accept in
principle that confirmation hearings are appropriate for the chairs and
deputy chairs of a whole range of bodies, but are not for other board
members, who, in a worst case scenario, could have the power to subvert
the activities of those boards, even if the chair and deputy chair had
been subject to scrutiny and were clearly appropriate for the job.
Being disappointed in that respect, I will therefore press the
amendment.
Question put, That the
amendment be
made:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes
9.
Division
No.
1
]
Smith,
Ms Angela C.
(Sheffield,
Hillsborough)
Question
accordingly negatived.
The
Chairman:
Is amendment No. 38 being pressed to a
vote?
Tom
Brake:
No, on the basis that the Minister has confirmed
that the Government will come forward with a draft amendment in future,
I will not press amendment No.
38.
The
Chairman:
Unless I hear strong objections to the contrary,
the nature of the debate on these amendments is such that we may take
it that the clause stand part debate has been held, so I will put that
straight to the vote.
Motion made, and Question
put, That the clause stand part of the
Bill:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes
5.
Division
No.
2
]
Smith,
Ms Angela C.
(Sheffield,
Hillsborough)
Question
accordingly agreed
to.
Clause 4
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
| 
