|Previous Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I must say a few words on this amendment, and I suppose those words should really be: "On the Government's head be it". We have never pretended from these Benches that our solution was the only one to deal with a mayor who may go off the rails or, at any rate, lose in a very important and fundamental way the confidence of both the assembly and the people of London; nor have we pretended that this is the best solution. But it is the only one on offer.
The Government have been very creative about the possible scenarios as to how such a procedure might be misused. But it is a matter for the Government to deal with the "what ifs"; for example, what if the mayor goes off the rails? What if the mayor acts in such a way as to bring the whole of London's government into disrepute through allegations about links with particular contractors dealing with major capital projects, or about private financial activities?
I have pointed out before to your Lordships that this party does not believe that the private life of a politician should be a matter for the public and the press to crawl all over. However, there are certain situations where it is legitimate for private activities to become a matter of public consideration because they affect the public's confidence in the office holder. There is also the situation where the mayor may bring the authority into disrepute because of investigations into activities which may lead to two months' imprisonment. Indeed, the list could go on still further.
I believe that the solution we propose is the logical conclusion; namely, that the members of the assembly should be given the statutory responsibility to hold the mayor to account. Sadly, what is now going on as regards the selection of the Labour Party's candidate for mayor is threatening to bring the whole project into disrepute. I hope that that can be turned around and that public confidence in London having its own government will grow between now and 4th May. At present, the public feeling is that this will turn out to be something of a farce. That would be the most enormous tragedy. Indeed, having got through the whole process, it would be very sad if we were to find that the structure allowed the mayor to bring London's new government into disrepute, without there being any mechanism available to deal with such a situation. That would not be good for London and, above all, it would not be good for the political process.
We on these Benches do not propose to disagree with the Commons--although I wholeheartedly disagree with their reason--and we will not seek to send our amendment back to them today. However, I felt that the points that I have made were important enough for me to detain your Lordships for a few minutes.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I believe that the Government have got this right. For the many reasons outlined by the Minister, the assembly members should not be able to get rid of the mayor. However, if the people of London make a mistake and appoint the wrong person--for example, someone who, within six months, turns out to be a really bad mayor doing a thoroughly bad job, but does not invoke disqualification because the technical requirements are not available--is the noble Lord
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, as the Minister knows, we agreed with this amendment when it was so ably presented by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Indeed, we agree with the arguments that she has put forward today for thinking that the House of Commons is wrong. We also agree with her in that we certainly would not dream of sending it back to the other place. In the end, if something goes unfortunately wrong, the responsibility will rest with the Government.
While I am on my feet, I should like to make a statement which is quite important as far as concerns Hansard. I should like the following to be on the record. During the course of the debate on the Question "That this Bill do now pass", on 1st November. I believe it was quite obvious that I was very angry. As I look at all the amendments which are before us today, I must say in sorrow that it seems to me that the Government are legislating on the hoof in sending the Bill backwards and forwards between both Houses. It is a contempt of Parliament itself that the amendments came to us so extraordinarily late and then went to the other place. They were the Government's own amendments; but, somehow, they are now being altered by the Government again. This is not the way to legislate. I very much hope that it will not happen with any other Bill that ever comes before this House.
This has been an extraordinarily bad Bill. I believe that the Secretary of State at the department and the Permanent Secretary should be asked to look at the way it has been handled, not, as I said, by Ministers in this House, but overall. As I said on the Bill do now pass debate, we have run a sweepstake on when the Government will have to come back to Parliament with an amending Bill. I shall not speak again on this Bill. Frankly I believe that the Government have treated the people of London with contempt in the way they have produced this Bill. It does not bear speaking about further.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, one thing needs to be said. The Minister has called in aid the fact that the mayor will be elected by some five and a quarter million Londoners. We need to remind ourselves that those same Londoners will also vote for and back the assembly. It is not a case of one group of politicians being against another; it is much more serious than that. We have to accept the Government's position, but I do not think that we should use false arguments in order to do so.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I note the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. We all accept that there have been problems with the passage of this Bill. As the noble Baroness has said that she will not speak on the more detailed amendments later, I point out that these amendments were for the most part indicated earlier to
I point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that we have a procedure for removing the mayor for high crimes; namely, we have a judicial process. The judicial process is the most appropriate in these circumstances. It is a fundamental principle that as regards their mandate--I must disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, on this point--and responsibilities, politicians are accountable to the people and not to another set of politicians unless those politicians elect the politician in question, as is the case with the Prime Minister or the leader of a party. The matter we are discussing constitutes an entirely new situation in Britain but the circumstances of political office in general do not. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, that the people of London will elect a mayor for four years, as they elect a government for that same period. There are those who felt it was fairly evident that certain governments in the recent past were making a thoroughly bad job of things after six months and that people had no redress. However, people can seek redress after five years. That applies also to the matter we are discussing.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the people cannot get rid of the Government in that sense. They cannot directly get rid of politicians. The politicians themselves are directly elected and cannot get rid of one another. The same principle applies to the matter we are discussing. The same principle should apply to all elective office.
I refer to the analogy with the United States, where the system which the noble Baroness proposes has almost brought the whole American constitution into disrepute. But at least the founding fathers had the wisdom to include some qualification, with regard to high crimes and misdemeanours, of the circumstances in which the system could operate. Admittedly that has been stretched a little in recent years. However, this amendment--as was agreed by this House--would have no such limitation save one; namely, the ability to cobble together 19 members of the assembly to vote against the mayor. That is not a sensible way to proceed. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has said, it is a situation where one set of politicians is effectively cancelling the mandate of another. That is purely a matter for the people to decide.
In my view this amendment is seriously constitutionally flawed. It is also politically unwise, legally doubtful and probably operationally pretty impractical. It adds nothing to the Bill but it provides an opportunity for serious political mischief in certain political circumstances, distracting both the mayor and the assembly from their central job of providing better governance for London.