Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

My Lords, this group of amendments includes provision for ensuring that the mayor appoints a Member of the London Assembly as the deputy mayor for policing and crime and not just, as the Bill provides, for ““a person””. The amendments also provide for the deputy mayor of policing to arrange for, "““another member of the London Assembly””," rather than any other person, "““to exercise any function of the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime””," that is exercisable by the deputy mayor. The Government have also tabled amendments on the London Assembly’s veto power over, "““the appointment of the candidate as deputy mayor for policing and crime if the candidate is not a member of the London Assembly””." That may act as a small incentive to appoint a London Assembly Member. However, those veto powers requiring a two-thirds majority of votes cast would not be necessary if some of the other amendments in the group that provide that the deputy mayor has to be, "““another member of the London Assembly””," were accepted. The Government have rejected the idea of an elected deputy mayor for policing and crime in London, but if that is a step too far for them surely they can accept the amendments that provide for that deputy mayor to be a Member of the London Assembly and thus ensure that the occupant of the post has at least successfully stood for election. In reality, the deputy mayor for policing and crime is the one who has responsibility for policing in London rather than the mayor, who has many other duties and does not have the time to give the post his undivided attention. It is only right that the occupant of the post should be a Member of the London Assembly, not simply ““a person”” known to the mayor and whose appointment—with a two-thirds majority required in the London Assembly to veto it—the mayor can almost certainly secure. I hope that the Minister will recognise the strength of the argument for these amendments and indicate that when she responds.