Greater London Authority Bill

moved Amendment No. 4: "4: Before Clause 3, insert the following new Clause—""““Mayor: limit on number of terms""In section 21(1) of the GLA Act 1999 (disqualification from being the Mayor or an Assembly member) before paragraph (a) insert""““(za) he has previously been elected or been the Mayor twice;””.””" The noble Baroness said: This is where we enter back into the principles rather than the personalities, and I say that very clearly because again this is an area of unfinished business from the previous Greater London Authority discussions and the previous Bill. The purpose of the amendment is to set a maximum of two terms of office for the Mayor of London. That is an established model, which is widely used for equivalent positions in other parts of the world—for example, the mayor of New York, who is always cited as one of the examples for the Mayor of London. It is also used more generally by many other constitutions and is certainly something that we ought to consider mirroring here. Our national situation elucidates some of the main arguments in favour of a two-term limit. I am sure that no one in this Committee would credibly argue that third-term Governments have particular success. Both parties would probably agree that you get tired towards the end. Two years on, the Government still regularly refer to the parochial achievement of having won three successive elections whenever they are on the defensive. That in itself presents an argument in favour of the amendment. Success should be measured in terms of actual government. It is a sad but undeniable fact that after two terms the incumbent often runs out of fresh ideas or motivation. The Administration can stall through a lack of direction or become complacent under a leader who is beginning not to have good ideas. We are to some extent creating a cult of personality with the Mayor of London, whoever that might be. There is an extreme possibility that a Mayor could end up almost in the role of dictator by being elected time after time and with very little opposition from the Assembly to what he is doing. As we have heard, the Assembly has power of scrutiny; it does not have sufficient power to hold the Mayor to account on all occasions. We will also propose in an amendment in a later sitting that there should be a power of recall in the Bill so that voters have the right to recall the Mayor at a later stage. Our only reason for preferring our amendment to Amendment No. 37, which was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is that this is a matter of fundamental significance, which we feel should be reflected earlier in the Bill. A two-term limit will become an even more important safeguard after the Bill is enacted, given the increased powers that the Bill gives to the Mayor's office. Some form of restriction is necessary to temper the office and to ensure that it is accountable, and not only between elections. The Mayor should have a limited amount of time to do what he wants to do. We believe that that time is eight years. I beg to move.