| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
4.45 pm
My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), with his encyclopaedic knowledge of the Bill, at least in the shape in which it left the House some months ago, had some penetrating things to say about it. The hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham)
made some interesting comments on the proposals. My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet(Sir S. Chapman) spoke of the good sense of Londoners, and that will be brought into play if the amendment is not accepted by the Government. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) had a lot to say on votes of confidence and so on. From what I can gather, with the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) claiming to lead his party outside Parliament, perhaps his own leader will face a vote of confidence fairly soon.
The hon. Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) talked about protecting Londoners, but surely the Government's attitude to the Bill would principally protect a mayor, and a bad mayor at that. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) rightly referred to international comparisons. My hon. Friends the Members for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) and for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) respectively, talked about the need for accountability and the autocracy of the Government, as displayed by the Bill.
On any view, we need a mechanism for removing a mayor on the grounds of dishonesty, any other serious misbehaviour, if he has forfeited the support of the Assembly, or if he has just lost the plot generally. There have to be mechanisms for removing him or her. In other places such as Los Angeles, mechanisms exist to remove the Mayor by petition or otherwise.
Much time was spent on the attempts to impeach the President of the United States for high crimes and misdemeanours, but saying that the US system is hopelessly flawed is not a good argument against introducing an equivalent system here, but one that works. With due respect to the Minister, the principal charge against the President was perjury. Surely even the Minister would not suggest that a mayor guilty of perjury should continue in office.
The amendments have moved away from the so-called nuclear option described in the other place, but there is no provision for votes of confidence. If a Prime Minister loses a vote of confidence, he resigns, but constitutionally he does that because there is a higher authority--the Queen. There is no higher authority in London under the legislation than the mayor. The mayor would join the select band, which includes His Holiness the Pope and the Grand Mufti, of people who simply cannot be sacked by anyone, at least on this earth. If the mayor lost touch with reality and barricaded himself in his bunker, convinced that he was right and everyone else was wrong, there would be nothing that could be done about it.
We think that the proposal strikes the right balance; 80 per cent. seems to be a reasonable proportion. If the Government felt that they could accept the principle--even though they have not yet done so--but achieve it differently, we should welcome their proposals.
The Government's basic position is that the matter should be left to the ballot box in due course and, if appropriate, to the law in the meantime. However, we all know that the law can take a long time; in America, arguments are deployed that a sitting president should not even have to face legal action until he has left office. Similar arguments could be deployed in this country.
The Government's only other argument against the proposal is that other parties would somehow gang up on the hapless mayor, who enjoyed the wholehearted support of ordinary folk in London, and get rid of him as soon as he was elected. However, the hon. Member for Ilford,
South--my former pair--pointed out that that could have happened under the old GLC; indeed, it did happen. It seems crazy and enormously risky for the Government to have no provision whatever to remove a mayor from office, except in severe circumstances.
If a legal case were brought against the mayor, it could well take the rest of his or her period of office for such a case to be resolved. That would be to take an enormous risk with the constitutional arrangements. It would be an enormous risk for the people of London and, for that reason, I urge the House to accept the amendments.
Mr. Raynsford:
With the leave of the House, I shall make a few comments in response to a rather uneven debate. We have heard some thoughtful and interesting contributions from both sides of the House. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward), who speaks for the Opposition, chose, in his introductory remarks, to take an ill-judged, party political approach--including some extremely distasteful personal attacks on individuals. The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), who must have been somewhat astonished to find himself included in the catalogue of supposed Labour extravagance and waste, made an astonishingly elegant riposte.
Mr. Brooke:
I am grateful to the Minister for thatlast comment. However, does he agree that the animadversions about candidates in the mayoral election fell first from his lips, not from those of my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward)?
Mr. Raynsford:
When I introduced the debate, I focused on the key issue--whether there should be a means for the Assembly to remove a mayor from office. I gave examples of when I thought that it would be inappropriate for that power to be available. I did not set out to impugn individuals in any way--except in one aside about one candidate--[Hon. Members: "Ah!"] It was an aside, referring to one gentleman whose past might well lead some people to conclude that the Conservatives have a strong reason for wanting a power of removal, to avoid embarrassment.
Mr. Brooke:
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way to me again. Could he devise some system by which--while delivering speeches during the debates on the Bill--he could indicate whether an observation is substantive or an aside?
Mr. Raynsford:
With his considerable experience of this place, the right hon. Gentleman knows the difference between an aside, delivered with a degree of humour, and an ill-judged, party political rant.
It is clear that there is no single model to which all Members of the House--or indeed all members of one political party--can sign up. Several different options have been considered and explored by various people, who have all concluded that no single model can be satisfactory. Whether we are talking about a framework for impeachment, or for a vote of no confidence, or to recall petitions, they are all subject to weaknesses. Those weaknesses were identified. The risk of abuse and of the demeaning of those powers--in the way that the
American constitution was demeaned by the activities of those wanting the impeachment of President Clinton--provides a salutary reason why we should not lightly take that route.
The key question must be whether sufficient and satisfactory safeguards are in place. Are there sufficient and satisfactory phone cards--safeguards--
Mr. Woodward:
Phone cards? [Laughter.]
Mr. Raynsford:
The hon. Member for Witney, who revealed his ignorance by referring to "our city" earlier in the debate--presumably implying that he lives here and identifies more with London than with his own constituency--really should know better than to make such facile and juvenile contributions.
The key question is whether there are adequate safeguards to ensure that any mayor who acts improperly or incorrectly can be held to account. The answer is that, in our legislation, there are. Let me summarise them.
First, the mayor is subject to a rigorous system of accountability. He will have to account, on a monthly basis, to the Assembly; twice a year he will be subject to open questioning at people's question time; he will have an annual state of London debate--[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) seems to regard a people's question time as beneath his dignity. I am sure that he would not expose himself to the electorate--[Interruption.] He would not expose himself to the scrutiny of the electorate--far from it. That is not his style. He would much prefer to hand down his views from on high and not be accountable at all.
Our framework allows for proper accountability. In addition to the explicit arrangements for accountability, as everyone knows, the mayor will be subject to regular scrutiny by the media and the public of London. There is also a budgetary provision under which the Assembly will have the power to veto the mayor's budget if it regards it as unsatisfactory. That provision is a safeguard against inappropriate spending, waste and abuse--[Interruption.] Opposition Members clearly do not wish to listen to the debate and are behaving in a childish manner--[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. I call on the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) to be quiet.
Mr. Raynsford:
I was referring to the budgetary safeguards, which ensure that the mayor will be subject to proper scrutiny by the Assembly. The mayor's budget can be changed and overruled by the Assembly if the Assembly believes that the mayor is misusing his power.
Next, as my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) pointed out, there are the statutory officers, whose role in this Authority is the same as in any local authority. Finally, there is explicit provision in the legislation for the mayor to be removed from office if he is convicted of an offence, is bankrupt or is disqualified under the Representation of the People Act 1989 or by the Audit Commission.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |