Greater London Authority Bill

I accept the criticism that the amendment is flawed, and the discussion has sensibly brought that out, but I do not accept that the principle is flawed. Today, even in the areas that have been criticised, we have discussed, as we needed to do, the principle of whether the Mayor, who is elected and is a figure of authority with power, should be subject to an additional check and balance. We discussed whether that might be done by a percentage of the electorate or a percentage of the people who vote in the election, and I accept the criticism in that regard. However, there is a principle here that we may need to flesh out again more satisfactorily. There should be a trigger mechanism for someone to obtain the required number of signatures if the Mayor causes immense chagrin to a proportion of the electorate through a policy initiative. I do not underestimate the difficulty that that would involve. Although theNo. 10 website manages to attract a lot of names, people are generally extremely reluctant to sign anything, and I accept that there would have to be checks on that. But the principle behind this and my previous amendment concerning a limit on the term is that, during the passage of the Bill, we should be able to find a measure to ensure that the Mayor is subject to checks and balances from the electorate between elections. I imagine that I shall return to this subject at the next stage but I accept the criticisms that have been made. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 17 agreed to.