---

Greater London Authority Bill

I am getting to my feet because of something that my noble friend just said. He asked: why, why, why? If I was Ken Livingstone, I would say, ““I have been here before””. When he was the leader of the GLC in the early 1980s and was an irritant in the side of the then Government, they did not even say that he should have no more than two terms; they just abolished the GLC and the other metropolitan authorities. This may be democratic and it may be akin to progress, but I cannot help feeling that, irrespective of whether someone has served them ill or well, the people of London ought to have the opportunity to decide whether that person should serve further terms. As my noble friends said, there is ample precedent of the matter not applying in all other democratic bodies, especially those involved in national and local government. It has always been left to the party concerned. We have all had experience of colleagues being deeply distressed when they have been deselected. They are deselected by their party caucus or ward. They cannot understand it because they had done a good job. Painful as it may be, it is decided that they should step aside for somebody else who is anxious to become a councillor. Or it may be decided that their time is up. However, that decision is taken democratically by the people who are as close as possible to the action. If this measure becomes law, the decision will be democratic but, frankly, we are meddling here with a fundamental point. If the current Mayor or any other is seen to serve the people well, it should be left to the electorate to decide whether to elect him for a third or even fourth term. That should not be prohibited by law.