Greater London Authority Bill

The power has not been widely used in the United States, and it would not be used widely here either. But it could be used in extremisif the Mayor did something that was of such importance to the electorate, or perhaps an extreme action triggered off a great deal of annoyance, irritation and concern. We should ensure that enough of the electorate signed the petition, so that the power could not be employed realistically unless there were clear grounds for doing so. Knowing how reluctant people in this country are to sign petitions, it would take a lot for them to do so. We recognise that, but we believe that it would enable some control overour Mayor’s actions if it were deemed appropriate by the electorate. If that power were there, it would underline that the incumbent Mayor must have reason to continue to act in the public interest as far as possible. The Minister may have identified flaws in the proposal for a two-term limit. We shall probably come back to that with a better term, but we believe that there is an argument to justify having further measures that could be used to control—since the Assembly cannot—what the Mayor does. It is essential that the Mayor knows that he can be judged on his performance between elections so that the electorate would have a voice if it felt strongly enough. As the 1999 Act and the Bill stand, there is no recall of the vote, even under a petition. It would be sensible as GLA powers expand—each time a GLA Bill comes up, there is a bit more power in it. We hope that that restraint would be important to the electorate and the system under which the GLA operates. I beg to move.