Greater London Authority Bill

My Lords, I have been fascinated by the arguments put contrary to my amendment. I am bound to say that I am at a loss to understand how it can be suggested that the electorate would be taken out of the equation if there was a clear indication that the period of office should be limited to two terms. Some Mayors may not survive two terms—they may be voted out in the middle. The electorate would have a right on two occasions—to elect them in and to re-elect them. The term of office would then be completed and the electorate would have the right to vote for someone else. I do not follow at all the suggestion that that would deny democratic procedures. I and my noble friend Lord Tope tried—and the Minister rather undermined that attempt—to ensure that this discussion was based around the principle of the term of the mayoralty. This was not and has never been tied up with the present Mayor. This has always been related to the constitutional implications for the GLA. It was not just my friends in the Liberal Democrat Party who attempted, during the passage of the GLA Bill, to impose this measure; as I recall, it was a joint venture to limit the period of office to two terms. The reason was then, and remains now, because the Mayor has a unique position in this country. If the amendment is passed, we may have other thoughts on the processes and discussions on the various elements that will be included in the local government Bill. I heard what the Minister had to say and the arguments that have been made, but I wish to test the opinion of the House. On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to? Their Lordships divided: Contents, 177; Not-Contents, 159.