Greater London Authority Bill

I support Amendment No. 37 in the name of my noble friends Lady Hamwee and Lady Scott of Needham Market. My noble friend Lady Hamwee began by saying that we must constantly remind ourselves that we are talking about the office and not the office holder. That is certainly the case here, although it is rather difficult when there has only ever been one holder of that office and when all the experience that we have of it is based on that experience. Incidentally, I do not seek to argue with the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, about where this should be in the Bill. Indeed, I believe that we are both seeking to achieve exactly the same objective and establish exactly the same principle. I can do no better than to quote the present incumbent of the office, in his previous incarnation as the honourable Member for Brent East, when he responded to the Government's original White Paper, which proposed the establishment of a strategic authority for London. He said: "““The government should also reconsider its decision not to have term limits for the mayor. So much of the American experience of directly elected mayors shows it gets progressively more difficult to defeat a well-dug-in incumbent who has been able to establish extensive systems of patronage. As recent experience in Paris also shows””—" he was speaking in 1998— "““corruption tends to flourish the longer an incumbent is able to hold onto power.""In a city that changes as rapidly as London it is hard to believe that a mayor who has served two terms will have the freshness of approach that is required to stay abreast of such a dynamic city. I therefore recommend that no mayor should serve more than two terms””." Incidentally, he went on to say in the next sentence: "““If I am lucky enough to be elected as London's first mayor and bearing in mind I have already served 5 years as leader of the GLC, I would not seek to serve more than one term””." I recently read that he has an ambition still to be Mayor in 2016, so presumably he has changed his view of at least part of this submission. The important point is that we are talking about a mayoral system—a presidential system. Although it is not universal, it is certainly quite normal throughout the world—it is certainly quite normal throughout Europe and the United States—to have term limits. The normal limit is two terms, although those terms may be of differing lengths. That is particularly because, whatever the power is, it is vested exclusively in one person. If that power extends and is held for too long, as indeed Mr Livingstone said in 1998, the tendency to corrupt—I do not mean financially—and to become tired is that much greater. Therefore, I strongly propose that we should have a term limit for the Mayor and, indeed, for any other executive office held by an individual, as is often the case. I should point out too that it is very much in accordance with the Nolan principles that there should be a term limit for such public appointments for exactly the same reasons. I hope that the Government will now do as the then honourable Member for Brent East suggested back in 1998 and give very serious consideration to a term limit—we suggest two terms—for the Mayor of London.