Greater London Authority Bill

On the question of the American parallels, I can say that there are none. New York, where they have a fixed term, is one example, but I read here that Chicago does not. We had better be careful about drawing these parallels. I did not mean to start my argument at that point, but that was probably where I had to go. I take issue with the idea that somehow after two terms, let alone three, you run out of steam. I can only refute that; we have an example of a third-term Government who are boiling over with new ideas and energy. As for what Ken Livingstone may have said some years in the past, let us hope that none of us are quoted on what we said 10 years ago. In this eloquent debate, the most important point has been exposed by many noble Lords. If we were to accept Amendments Nos. 4 and 37, that would have fundamental implications for the post of Mayor. It would set a precedent, and not only for the relationship between the electorate and everyone who is elected. It would raise a fundamental question about the best way of getting rid of people in office. Ultimately, it has to be for the London electorate to decide who should be Mayor; they must have a choice over whether to re-elect an incumbent. Yes, incumbents have an additional benefit, but they also have longer track records that can be held up to the light. When we see the charismatic Conservative candidate who eventually emerges, we look forward to seeing how he challenges that record, although it may be some time before we have that pleasure. We must be careful not to look to the Bill to do something so radical and create such an upheaval. Obviously, fundamental changes in the GLA constitution can be made only when there is a clear and overwhelming case and when there is a consensus. No one would want to move on the grounds of political expediency on such an important matter. The White Paper in 1998 made it clear that there should be no limit on the number of terms of office that either the Mayor or the Assembly Members could serve, and that is in common with other categories of elected office across the country. I found it slightly surprising that the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, put this amendment forward; in Committee in the other place, the Front-Bench Conservative spokesman clearly expressed his opposition to term limits. Nevertheless, this has been an interesting and, in some ways, entertaining debate, and I look forward to the noble Lords not proceeding with their amendments.