---

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman's comment is preposterous. He proposes not a democratic safeguard but a means to ensure that the mandate of one group of people can overrule another. I accept that he does not understand our framework. He was always committed to a different one, with which the Liberal Democrats are more familiar, in which all members of a council are elected together and one is elected from within that number to be leader. We have rejected that system. We have gone for an alternative model of a separation of powers. In that model, it is right that the mayor, who has the executive power should be subject to scrutiny by the Assembly. It is not right that the mayor can be removed by the Assembly because the two have different and distinct mandates.

I made it clear in Committee--I remember it only too well--that the procedures in America made a mockery of the process of impeachment and provided a good reason why we should not adopt such a model for London.

Mr. John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington): We must acknowledge that, as we are introducing a new system, there is genuine concern about the concentration of so much power into the hands of one individual. At present, there are relevant parts of other measures and of this one that can overcome the problem of the mad and the criminally bad, but there is also the difficulty of the zone of differences that has been mentioned. I do not want to enter into discussion of the problems of the gradations of bizarre sexual practices, or whatever.

However, if there are gradations of unacceptable behaviour and if the mayor's behaviour leads to public opprobrium, such matters need to be dealt with, although not necessarily in this Bill. If the mayoral system is to be developed under measures to be introduced in the next Queen's Speech, perhaps we could address those matters at that time, or we might review them after five years--the first period of office for the mayor of the Greater London Authority that will be elected in May next year.

Mr. Raynsford: I am well aware of my hon. Friend's reservations as to the model that we proposed; he has expressed his concerns. We have tried to establish a framework under which the mayor can act effectively.

4 Nov 1999 : Column 508

We want a model for effective city governance, but we are also determined that such governance should be accountable. The framework ensures openness on a scale that no one could possibly criticise. The mayor will be subject to intense scrutiny at all times; his or her actions will be transparent, and will be examined in detail by members of the Assembly. I have already referred to the safeguards; it would be tedious for me to repeat them.

Mr. Wilshire: It may make the Minister somewhat nervous when I tell him that I have a little sympathy for the point that he made as to the perverseness of some actions. However, what we are hearing are arguments for limiting the power of impeachment--not for making it impossible. Will he consider tabling an amendment that increases the number from 19 to 20 or 21, or that tries to define the perverse reasons when impeachment should not be used? The grey area to which my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) referred is absolutely crucial: there are some actions that are politically unacceptable; they fall short of being criminal, but they are not perverse. Will the Minister consider an amendment, rather than saying that there should be no impeachment?

Mr. Raynsford: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. During our considerations in Committee, at an earlier stage of the Bill's progress, we explored several different options, tabled as amendments. Some of those proposed that there could be petitions from the people of London to remove the mayor--a large number of signatures being sufficient to trigger that. We decided that it would be difficult to verify a large number of signatures in such a way as to give confidence. We discussed different permutations of the maximum number of people who might be required to sign or agree with an impeachment motion so as to make it effective. Our conclusion was that all those proposals were defective and that the danger of abuse of the system--simply to put out a mayor on a partisan vote--was such that it was better to leave the original framework that was in the Bill. That was our judgment at that time; it remains our judgment today.

As I have said, the mayor will be subject to intense scrutiny, and his or her actions will be constantly reviewed--not only by the Assembly, but by the London media. The people of London will have every opportunity to make their views known. Furthermore, a mayor who is running into difficulty, and does not have a popular mandate, will be extremely vulnerable when the Assembly scrutinises his or her budget. That will be the Assembly's key sanction against a mayor who strays into territory--I accept that it is possible--where he or she has not acted in a way that is outright criminal, but where his or her actions appear not to be in the interests of the people of London. In that case, the Assembly will have the sanction to take measures--through control of the budget--to amend the mayor's policies. That is the safeguard. The people of London have the right to remove the person whom they entrust with the job of mayor. That is the ultimate democratic sanction, which can be properly exercised only by the same group who have the right to elect the mayor in the first place.

4 Nov 1999 : Column 509

2.15 pm

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister explain to the House why, during discussion of measures introduced by his Government on the effect of a vote of no confidence in the Scottish Parliament, this Parliament decided that a majority in favour of such a vote against the First Minister of Scotland--the Executive of Scotland--would be sufficient for the First Minister to resign?

Mr. Raynsford: I put two points to the hon. Gentleman. First, that what he describes is not impeachment, and, secondly, it is a separate matter because it involves the Scottish Parliament. We believe that there should be different provisions for different tiers of government. What we propose in London is unique. We have not done it before. The hon. Gentleman may not like it; he made it pretty clear throughout the previous debates that he and his party do not want a mayor--they want the old, traditional local government pattern, with everyone elected and the leader being elected in the way that has been done for time immemorial.

I am sorry, but we disagree. We believe that that is not the right way forward for London, where we want a radical and innovative framework that allows the mayor to be directly elected, so that he or she can exercise the type of power and influence that directly elected mayors elsewhere in the world are able to exercise in the interests of their cities. If hon. Members consider the way in which effective mayors, throughout the world, have transformed their cities and have made a difference, they will understand why we have introduced these measures. The intervention made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey is a throwback to the old Liberal Democrat style of doing things.

We are moving forward; we are setting up a new structure of government. Our proposals provide for transparency and accountability. There are safeguards; and there is an appropriate disciplinary framework. I do not believe that the impeachment procedures that were added to the Bill in another place could operate without the gravest risk of abuse. That would bring the whole exercise into disrepute, in the same way as occurred in the United States. I urge the House to reject the Lords amendments.

Mr. Woodward: This is an extremely important matter. The consequence of a vote of no confidence inthe mayor would be very serious, as the Minister acknowledges. Such a power should not be used lightly. However, Conservative Members take the view that we should trust those who have been democratically elected to the Assembly to exercise their responsibilities with seriousness and due diligence, and that we should trust them in this important matter of impeachment. It is a huge power; it is a significant demonstration of our trust in those whom London will elect next May to exercise that power diligently. We believe that we should trust the Assembly members, who will have been democratically elected, and that the Minister is wrong not to trust them to behave suitably.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South): I have listened carefully to the debate. How does the hon. Gentleman define the word "diligent"? It is a wonderful

4 Nov 1999 : Column 510

field for legalese. I can picture litigation ad nauseam in the divisional court on that one point. I suggest that it is not a solution.

Mr. Woodward: That there is difficulty in defining "diligent" is no reason not to trust that people will exercise diligence.

We look forward to hearing the views of hon. Members on the important subject of the amendment. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and the hon. Members for Hampsteadand Highgate (Ms Jackson) and for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) have decided not to be in Chamber this afternoon. I would have thought that a debate on a Bill to set up the institution that they want to lead would be an occasion on which they could take time out of their busy schedules to turn up at the House. However, perhaps they have received advice from the Minister for Housing and Planning, whom we are delighted to see in the Chamber this afternoon--if only in his capacity as the campaign manager for one of the candidates.

---