---

Greater London Authority Bill

My noble friend is deeply unfair. I certainly did not say that the Olympic Games was a minor issue. It was the only example that I could think of, although there was also the foot and mouth outbreak. However, we can all put forward our own candidates; for example, 2012 is the Handel tercentenary and that would be a very good reason for postponing the elections but, again, it is hardly a sufficient argument for interfering in such an important part of the democratic process. It would undermine a fundamental constitutional principle in the original GLA Act that the Mayor’s political legitimacy is derived from direct regular elections held every four years. We had the beginnings of a discussion about that yesterday. While a potential change of Mayor in May 2012 might be a complicating factor, we cannot consider it as a major risk to the games. In all seriousness, the proposal would also set a dubious precedent. The foot and mouth example followed from a genuine national emergency and there was no argument for different parts of the country voting on different days. On the basis of that argument, a case could be made for saying that other major sporting events should also trigger such a change, but that simply would not make sense. There is one other argument. There would be increasing concerns about the political legitimacy of the Mayor—whoever is elected in 2008—towards the end of his five-year term in 2013, especially if he took forward new policies in areas not directly related to the Olympics. There would be a disjunction that would cause some confusion in the political environment and it might even lead to a loss of confidence in the Mayor. So, with regret, I must tell the noble Lord that we cannot accept his amendment and I hope that he finds it possible to withdraw it.