Greater London Authority Bill

moved Amendment No. 3: 3: 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: My Lords, it is important that we establish at the beginning of this amendment that we are talking about the principle and not the present occupant of the mayoral office. It is terribly difficult in this Bill not to take account of what has happened during the past six years, since the Greater London Authority Bill became an Act and the debates that took place then, with the elected Mayor in the mayoral office. We have unfinished business from the GLA Act because when we debated it we were not able to limit the terms of office of the Mayor. It is a very big position which requires a great deal of capacity and organisational skills. It would not be unknown for a mayoral office to be time-limited to two terms. That is what happens in New York, and no one would say that Mayor Giuliani did not make a profound impression upon New York in his two terms. The office of mayor in this country is now the nearest thing we have to a dictator. There is very little to stop him doing what he wants to do. It is true that he or she has to consult and take account of other bodies within London, and presumably he has to take some account of the electorate, otherwise the second term would not appear—nor would a third, if that is what is proposed. It is a very unusual office in this country; in fact, it is unique. It seems to us that the whole principle established by the Septennial Act, which limits parliamentary terms to four or five years, is based on the acknowledgment that Administrations become tired and complacent, and potentially—if they are on their own, as the Mayor is—could become dictatorial in that job. The Bill affects the London Assembly, one ingredient in a plethora of organisations dedicated to the service of running London, but an ingredient that we would say is top-heavy. The Mayor’s position is very powerful and has at its disposal considerable resources. As we discussed briefly before, there were attempts in the Greater London Authority Act to limit the amount of resources that would be available to any Mayor, and it has not been possible to do that. However hard we try to make ourselves believe otherwise—or, at least, however hard the Government do so—the scrutiny role of the Assembly is still not powerful enough. We are trying in this Bill to ensure that it becomes a bit stronger, but it is still not strong enough to stop a Mayor in his tracks or to provide an adequate check on the mayoral position. For those reasons we feel that the Mayor should be entitled to run for only two terms of office, and that that period should be the Mayor’s time and his record. The position should not become monopolised by any one individual or party, because that is effectively what happens when the role is occupied for too long. The role requires challenge, renewal and refreshment. If it remains for too long in the hands of one occupant, there is a considerable danger either that there could be a feeling that that one person was a permanent institution or that, if he was there for more than two terms, the Mayor may become disparaging of and disconnected from the electorate. I have been trying extremely hard to make sure that I am talking only about the position, not the person. I understand that at this stage of the process it is quite hard to disconnect one from the other, but I am talking about the principle here, a principle that we were not able to establish during the GLA Act but which I thought then, and continue to think now, was something we ought to have been able to introduce. I shall move the amendment in those terms, and I am sure the debate will continue in those terms, on the principle that the mayoral role should be limited to two terms only. I beg to move.