Tom Brake (Shadow Minister, Department for Communities and Local Government; Carshalton & Wallington, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Ann Winterton (Congleton, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 14—Vacation of office by Mayor following petition and recall ballot

‘After section 16 of the GLA Act 1999 insert—

“16A Vacation of office following petition and recall ballot

(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for, or in connection with, requiring the Mayor on receipt of a petition which complies with the provisions of the regulations and a recall ballot of eligible voters in London to vacate office, in such circumstances as may be prescribed in the regulations.

(2) The provision which may be made by regulations under subsection (1) includes provision—

(a) as to the form and content of petitions (including provisions for petitions in electronic form),

(b) as to the minimum number of electors entitled to vote for the Mayor under this Act who must support any petition presented to the Mayor during any period specified in the regulations,

(c) for or in connection with requiring an office of the GLA to publish the number of electors who must support any petition presented to the authority,

(d) as to the way in which electors are to support a petition (including provision enabling electors to support petitions by telephone or by electronic means),

(e) as to the action which may, may not or must be taken by the Authority in connection with any petition,

(f) as to the manner in which a petition is to be presented,

(g) as to the verification of any petition,

(h) as to the minimum and maximum number of days in which a ballot should be held,

(i) as to the format and wording of the recall ballot,

(j) as to the date on which, or the time by which, the Mayor must vacate office,

(k) for or in connection with enabling the Secretary of State, in the event of any failure by the Authority to take any action permitted or required by virtue of the regulations, to take that action.

(3) The number of electors mentioned in subsection (2)(b) is to be calculated at such times as may be provided by regulations under this section and (unless such regulations otherwise provide) is to be 10 per cent. of the total number of electors participating in the Mayoral election preceding the date of any petition.

(4) Nothing in subsection (2) or (3) affects the generality of the power under subsection (1).”.’.

Tom Brake (Shadow Minister, Department for Communities and Local Government; Carshalton & Wallington, Liberal Democrat)

The purpose of new clause 3 is to ensure that a Mayor can serve only two terms in office. I accept that there are arguments both for and against fixed two-term periods. I understand the argument that applies to the US President that, in the second term, he becomes a lame duck. However, I believe to a great extent that that is down to the individual and the extent to which that person wants to pursue with vigour the full two terms.

Greg Hands (Hammersmith & Fulham, Conservative)

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman gave the example of the United States President. I have an interesting parallel. One of the reasons why I am opposed to the new clause is that, when the constitution of the United States was amended to introduce term limits for the post of President, it was after the person in question, Franklin Roosevelt, had departed from office. One of the problems with the argument about term limits is that if an incumbent had already done more than two terms, the debate would inevitably be about that incumbent rather than the merits of the constitutional change. The hon. Gentleman’s new clause would actually disfranchise the electorate; they would not be able to vote out of office the current incumbent, which I am very much looking forward to happening in 2008.

Tom Brake (Shadow Minister, Department for Communities and Local Government; Carshalton & Wallington, Liberal Democrat)

The hon. Gentleman refers to amendment 22 to the United States constitution, which introduced the limit of two terms.

Andrew Slaughter (PPS (Dr Stephen Ladyman, Minister of State), Department for Transport; Ealing, Acton & Shepherd's Bush, Labour)

I had hoped to agree with the entire intervention from the hon. Member for Hammersmith  and Fulham; I agreed with it up to the final part. The problem with the new clause is that it is partisan: it is based on the Mayor proving rather too popular for the likes of Opposition parties, and it is aimed at him. Were I to table an amendment that disqualified anyone, say, convicted of a dishonesty offence, it might prejudice certain prospective Conservative candidates. Similarly, were I to table an amendment disqualifying anybody who had simultaneously held opposing positions on important issues, it might disadvantage a Liberal Democrat candidate. The weakness of the hon. Gentleman’s amendment is not constitutional but personal.

Tom Brake (Shadow Minister, Department for Communities and Local Government; Carshalton & Wallington, Liberal Democrat)

I do not seek to be partisan. There is a case for introducing the two-term limit in the future.

Greg Hands (Hammersmith & Fulham, Conservative)

That is not what the new clause says.

Tom Brake (Shadow Minister, Department for Communities and Local Government; Carshalton & Wallington, Liberal Democrat)

We have a Mayor who could serve the remainder of his office and not enter into a third term. I regret that my new clause appears partisan. The Mayor is midway through his second term, but the principle is strong and valid and it should be introduced. The US took that decision. President Thomas Jefferson said that if there were no termination in the constitution to the services of the chief magistrate, as he described the post, the office would be for life. I hope that we all agree that no one, whether Mayor of London or Prime Minister, should be in post for life.

Greg Hands (Hammersmith & Fulham, Conservative)

I am interested in this subject. Is it Liberal Democrat policy to seek term limits on political positions generally? If not, why should it apply only to the Mayor of London and not to other positions?

Tom Brake (Shadow Minister, Department for Communities and Local Government; Carshalton & Wallington, Liberal Democrat)

I risk stepping on many other toes if I apply the principle to all positions of executive power. We are discussing the London model—a system of governance that Members accept is unique in the United Kingdom. I do not seek to extend the principle to all and sundry.

Martin Linton (PPS (Rt Hon Harriet Harman QC, Minister of State), Department for Constitutional Affairs; Battersea, Labour)

As the hon. Gentleman was gracious enough to say that the new clause is not moved in any partisan sense, and that it would apply particularly to London, I am sure that there is time between now and Tuesday for him to table an amendment to the new clause—or table a new new clause—that would exempt the incumbent in London from that provision, in the same way that Franklin Delano Roosevelt was exempted. The current Mayor could stand in 2008, and in 2012 just before the Olympics, and after his four terms the next Mayor could be restricted to two terms.

Tom Brake (Shadow Minister, Department for Communities and Local Government; Carshalton & Wallington, Liberal Democrat)

That is possibly a way out for me, which at this moment in time may be something I seek. I shall consider the hon. Gentleman’s idea. In the unlikely event that the Minister were willing to entertain the new clause, subject to certain amendments, I should be tempted to put forward the hon. Gentleman’s helpful proposals.

There are arguments against two fixed terms, and against creating the perception that someone who is midway through their second term is ineffective and no longer able to make strong proposals. Equally, there are similar concerns about having no fixed terms and no defined point at which office is relinquished. There are both pros and cons. However, on balance, I should like to put forward in a non-partisan way the idea of two fixed terms for the Mayor of London, given the executive power and strength of that office. Once the Government have accepted the proposal, I shall entertain the option of pushing the time frame back so that the measure can be clearly perceived as non-partisan.

Greg Hands (Hammersmith & Fulham, Conservative)

If the proposal should apply to an executive Mayor in the London model, should it also apply in Watford, which also has an executive mayor?

Tom Brake (Shadow Minister, Department for Communities and Local Government; Carshalton & Wallington, Liberal Democrat)

We did a certain amount of research before putting forward the proposal. It was pointed out that Watford might be deployed as an argument; that is why I have been keen to restrict the proposal simply to London, which has a unique structure and where the Mayor has unique power that is not replicated in any other city in the country. It will probably be sensible for me not to pursue this matter with much more vigour or for much longer. I shall give the Minister and the official Opposition the opportunity to support the proposal.

Michael Gove (Shadow Minister (Housing), Communities and Local Government; Surrey Heath, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman advanced on to the battlefield with a flourish, but I am afraid that once he came under enfilade fire—both from my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham and the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd’s Bush—he presented, much to my regret, a bedraggled figure.

Tom Brake (Shadow Minister, Department for Communities and Local Government; Carshalton & Wallington, Liberal Democrat)

Not my finest hour.

Michael Gove (Shadow Minister (Housing), Communities and Local Government; Surrey Heath, Conservative)

It seemed that the hon. Gentleman was conducting a fighting tactical retreat. He is self-critical enough to say that it was not his finest hour. I thought that he put up a good fight for a proposition that I must concede is flawed.

The arguments of those who intervened underlined that. Given the big personality who occupies the mayoral office, any attempt to call for term limits will inevitably be seen as an attempt to clip Ken’s wings rather than ensure that the principle applies impartially to the mayoral office. More than that, we have to accept that the whole principle of term limits is alien to the British constitution. We all know why it emerged in America and that the original principle of citizen legislator, which existed in the Roman Republic—where there were strict term limits of one year or six months, after which the same office could not be held by the same individual—was a safeguard against the arrogant exercise of executive power.

However, for all its glories, the Roman Republic was not a fully participatory, representative democratic system such as the one that we enjoy in this country. We have evolved a constitution that is allergic to term limits, and for a very good reason. We know the answer  to arrogance. It is the voice of the people at the ballot box throwing out a Prime Minister who has overstayed his welcome—

Stephen Pound rose—

Michael Gove (Shadow Minister (Housing), Communities and Local Government; Surrey Heath, Conservative)

Talking of which, I am happy to give way to the hon. Member for Ealing, North.

Stephen Pound (PPS (Rt Hon Hazel Blears, Minister without Portfolio), Cabinet Office; Ealing North, Labour)

It is unfortunate that we proud Londoners, born and bred, have to listen to so many examples from across the Atlantic. However, if we are to look at America, that new found land, I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he has thought, as I have, that the only figure comparable to our present Mayor of London was Fiorello LaGuardia. People started to talk about term limits only during LaGuardia’s third term. Is not all this talk much more to do with the individual concerned, rather than the position of Mayor?

Michael Gove (Shadow Minister (Housing), Communities and Local Government; Surrey Heath, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman makes a particularly valid point. To be fair, the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington was absolutely clear that the intention behind the new clause, certainly as he presented it, was not to make a point against Mayor Livingstone. It may well be that some of his Liberal Democrat allies who pressed the new clause on him were handing him a poisoned chalice. It may be that some of those who wanted him to press the new clause were actuated by lower motives and wanted to put Mayor Livingstone in the frame. All I can say is that the hon. Gentleman showed in his speech even as he pressed his case that he was free of malice. We on our side of the Committee wish no ill will towards the current incumbent of the office. We want to see him taken out of office at the ballot box by a fair election in which an alternative candidate—a plethora are willing to stand under the Conservative banner—has the opportunity to eject him from office.

Andrew Slaughter (PPS (Dr Stephen Ladyman, Minister of State), Department for Transport; Ealing, Acton & Shepherd's Bush, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman is clearly privy to the inner secrets of the Conservative party. Will it put forward a candidate at the next elections?

Michael Gove (Shadow Minister (Housing), Communities and Local Government; Surrey Heath, Conservative)

I am flattered by the hon. Gentleman’s insinuation that I am privy to the inner secrets of the Conservative party. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am not privy to any of the secrets of the Conservative party, but I know that a large number of remarkably talented candidates, some of whom have not been partisan Conservatives, will relish the opportunity to take part in our open and democratic primary process and to challenge the Mayor on his record. It has been instructive thatthe longer the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) has gone on, the broader the appeal of the Conservative party has been, the more we have risen in the polls relative to the Government and the greater the number of individuals who have expressed an interest has been. In that respect, the leader of the party was wise to allow the process to become longer. It will give Londoners a bigger choice of more talented figures.

If any Labour Members would like to take advantage of our voting procedure, they can do so. One of the important things is that we will have a truly open primary. One of the key elements that is attractive about how we will select our mayoral candidate is that it will be open to all Londoners to vote. It is a striking feature, Lady Winterton, of open primaries that the two Conservative candidates who were selected atthe last general election by open primaries—our candidates in Warrington, South in the fair county of Cheshire and in Reading, East—both received swings above the national average. The open primary method of selection, which Labour has mocked, saw the membership of both constituency parties rise along with the votes. It might be the case that the scorn directed towards the open primary system will turn to bitter tears of lamentation when a Conservative takes over as Mayor after the next election.

Greg Hands (Hammersmith & Fulham, Conservative)

May I make my hon. Friend aware that the Hammersmith Conservative association will also chose its candidate for the next general election by open primary to take on an interloper, the Labour candidate who is currently the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd’s Bush?

Michael Gove (Shadow Minister (Housing), Communities and Local Government; Surrey Heath, Conservative)

If one looks at the projected majority in the Labour seat of Hammersmith, one will see that it stands at something like 5,000. However, if one considers the election results for Hammersmith and Fulham borough council and prays in aid the evidence of a differential swing in favour of a candidate selected by an open primary, whoever might be the Labour candidate in Hammersmith has a jacket on a much shooglier nail than he assumes. In other words, his seat is considerably less safe than would have been assumed otherwise. Once again, the power of the open primary and the ballot box to affect who represents us is underwritten.

Andrew Slaughter (PPS (Dr Stephen Ladyman, Minister of State), Department for Transport; Ealing, Acton & Shepherd's Bush, Labour)

I fear that the hon. Gentleman is trying to spook me. I am wary of him because he tried to entrap me earlier this afternoon by luring me out of my temporary Trappism as a stand-in Parliamentary Private Secretary by way of showing that I was unfit for that office. Now, apparently, I am unfit also to be the candidate in Hammersmith. I would say that I do not need any assistance from the Conservative party in reducing majorities, and I pray in aid my attempt in Uxbridge.

Michael Gove (Shadow Minister (Housing), Communities and Local Government; Surrey Heath, Conservative)

That was a gracious intervention, proof if proof were needed—and none is—that the hon. Gentleman has a sense of humour as well as a sense of proportion. He might need his sense of humour and of proportion when the Conservatives win Hammersmith at the next general election, but I am glad to place it on the record that when I made reference to his temporary occupation of the seat occupied by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough I in no way suggested that he was unfit for office. He is perfectly equipped to serve in almost any capacity in this Administration. [Laughter.] He can take that how he will.

I hope that I made it clear that we do not believe in term limits in principle or for the Mayor of London. We believe that this Mayor should receive his just desserts at the ballot box and at the hands of London’s voters.

I shall briefly explain why we are pressing new clause 14. We have talked a little about why term limits are an American invention that is inappropriate for the British constitution, but we believe that the principle of a recall vote is one American invention that might be appropriate for it. One reason why we think it is appropriate is because, for a variety of reasons, the Mayor, who exercises an executive function analogous to that of the governor of an American state, might dishonour the mandate on which he was elected, go on an ideological or personal journey utterly at odds with the basis on which he was elected or be temporarily incapable of effectively discharging the duties of the office to which he was elected, yet be determined, rather like the captain of the ship in “The Caine Mutiny”, to hang on to the levers of power, even though he is no longer fit to do so. Such a situation might arise in a number of circumstances.

Andrew Slaughter (PPS (Dr Stephen Ladyman, Minister of State), Department for Transport; Ealing, Acton & Shepherd's Bush, Labour)

I am tempted to put the same style of question as was put to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington. If the hon. Member for Surrey Heath favours this departure of the recall, which is even more alien to British constitutional practice, for the mayoral position, does he favour it for any other elected position, for example, his own? The residents of Surrey Heath, conscious of the fact that the hon. Gentleman cannot remember what his constituency is, might like someone who can.

Michael Gove (Shadow Minister (Housing), Communities and Local Government; Surrey Heath, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. There is a clear distinction between the gubernatorial office, which is analogous to that of the Mayor of London, and the legislative office, which is analogous to a position in Congress or the Senate. I would not say that being the Member for Surrey Heath is a bit like being a Senator, although it is a little like being a Congressman.

The hon. Gentleman teases me about the precise location of Surrey Heath. I can tell him, because I will be driving there almost as soon as this Committee finishes, that the most effective way to get to it is to drive down the A316 and then the M3. If one then turns off at junction 3, for Lightwater or Bagshot, one will find oneself in Surrey Heath. If he would like me to take him through every village in Surrey Heath, either in conversation at a later date or possibly on a tour, I shall give him a lane-by-lane and street-by-street guide to the constituency that is every bit as detailed as that of any satellite navigation system. As we all know, satellite navigation is a form of global positioning system. I have my own form of GPS—the Gove positioning system—which means that whenever I am in Surrey Heath, I am a happier bunny.

The point that I was about was that, as the hon. Member for Ealing, North pointed out from a sedentary position, Gray Davis, the former governor of California, was subject to a recall amendment. A former mayor of Washington DC, Marion Barry, has also been mentioned. He sets a precedent for being precisely the sort of figure who might have been suitably chastened by being subject to a recall amendment following the sort of petition that we are proposing. We set quite a high threshold, insisting that 10 per cent. of those who had voted in the mayoral election sign a suitably validated petition before there can be any recall vote. This would not be a capricious process.

Stephen Pound (PPS (Rt Hon Hazel Blears, Minister without Portfolio), Cabinet Office; Ealing North, Labour)

I believe that Marion Barry, the former mayor of DC, was found freebasing cocaine with two hookers in a hotel. One would not in any way make a comparison to the exemplary standards of probity expressed by the current Mayor of London, but surely Marion Barry was in prison and was thus disqualified. So, we already have a failsafe mechanism in London in the highly unlikely event that anything of a similar nature should occur.

Michael Gove (Shadow Minister (Housing), Communities and Local Government; Surrey Heath, Conservative)

I am grateful for that colourful intervention. The hon. Gentleman points out that if the Mayor were to break the law and to engage in any criminal enterprise, the law of the land would apply. There are a variety of circumstances in which a person exercising an executive function, such as a mayor, or a gubernatorial one, such as Gray Davis, would be appropriately held in check by the power. We all know that the lurid anecdote that the hon. Gentleman brought to the Committee’s attention is not the only example of a mayor, Marion Barry, straying from the high standards that one might expect of an elected mayor. One might argue that some of the policies that he pursued were rather more worthy of chastening than were his colourful recreational activities in some of DC’s hotels.

The threshold that we have set is relatively high, so anybody who sought to press a recall petition on the citizens of London would have to be well organised and well mobilised. Most important, he would have to be in tune with the sentiments of Londoners. Because the threshold is so high, the device could not be used simply to inconvenience the Mayor and to bring London’s governance to a halt. It could be used only if there were a clear public demand and if the Mayor—a future Mayor, I am sure—had palpably failed to live up to the hopes that had been invested in him by those who elected him to the extent that he had radically and dramatically departed from his mandate. For that reason, I hope that, while understandably passing over the opportunity to accept the new clause in the name of the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, the Minister might look favourably on our imaginative transatlantic import.

Jim Fitzpatrick (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Trade and Industry; Poplar & Canning Town, Labour)

Before I respond to this debate, may I express my appreciation to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington for his comments on the previous new clause, when he indicated that he was trying to assist me in catching my flight to Berlin for tomorrow’s Employment Ministers’ conference. I believed that I was on the last flight today, but that flight has been cancelled due to weather conditions in Germany. Fortunately, the resourcefulness of the civil service has found me a later flight, so I apologise for anything misleading that I might have said in that respect.

The Government cannot accept either new clause. Both run counter to the fundamental constitutional principles at the heart of the 1999 Act and are ultimately, we would argue, undemocratic. New clause 3 would bar a Mayor or an assembly member who had served two terms of office from being elected for a third term. There is little justification for limiting by statute the number of terms that a mayor can serve in office. It should be for the London electorate to decide who  should be Mayor. If the electorate wish to re-elect an incumbent Mayor for three or more terms on the basis of his or her track record, that should be allowed. This is democracy in action; it is what gives the post of Mayor political legitimacy. A statutory limitation on the number of terms that a Mayor can serve would run counter to the fundamental democratic principle that covers all other national and local electoral arrangements in the United Kingdom. Furthermore, because a second-term Mayor would not be allowed the opportunity to stand and face the electorate on his track record, it is possible that he would be less responsive to the needs and concerns of Londoners and less motivated to address the challenges that London faces. That would not be good for the post of Mayor or for London.

New clause 14 would enable a Secretary of State to make regulations to allow the Mayor to be removed from office by a successful petition from a proportion of the London electorate. The Government remain convinced that the use of such a petition to remove the Mayor from office would be completely inappropriate. I was intrigued to read that, in Committee during the scrutiny of the 1999 Act, discussing petitioning, the late, great Eric Forth, who sat for Bromley and Chislehurst, asked the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) whether he would rely on an informal mechanism of people collecting signatures—which would no doubt include the usual Mickey Mouse and Napoleon Bonaparte—and if so, how he would verify the procedure and its cost. Bonapartism is a feature of this debate that has been mentioned several times by both the hon. Member for Surrey Heath and the sitting Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. Clearly, it runs throughthe Bill.

Greg Hands (Hammersmith & Fulham, Conservative)

The new clause clearly refers to

“10 per cent. of the total number of electors participating in the Mayoral election preceding the date of any petition.”

That suggests to me that electors who participated in the election would be deemed to be valid signatories. I assume that Mickey Mouse would not have been allowed to participate in the preceding mayoral election.

Jim Fitzpatrick (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Trade and Industry; Poplar & Canning Town, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. The validation of petitions has proven difficult in the past, but subsection (4) of the new clause says:

“Nothing in subsection (2) or (3) affects the generality of the power under subsection (1)”.

Subsection (1) would give the Secretary of State complete power to determine what percentage of signature petitions ought to be allowed.

At the heart of the 1999 Act is the constitutional principle that the Mayor’s democratic legitimacy is ultimately derived from the direct elections held every four years. It is the Mayor’s success at those elections, which involve the whole London electorate, that gives him the democratic mandate to provide strong leadership and strategic direction for London.

To allow the Mayor to be removed from office through a petition would undermine that fundamental  principle. It would allow a small proportion of Londoners who were unhappy with the Mayor to override the wishes of the wider London electorate expressed at the ballot box. It could also encourage special interest groups, of whatever persuasion, continually to campaign for the removal of the Mayor by petition whenever they disagreed with a specific mayoral policy or decision. That would almost certainly happen if the default minimum threshold for a valid petition was set at 10 per cent. of the number of people who participated in the last mayoral election, as the new clause proposes.

Based on the last election results, a successful petition would need the support of 186,000 voters to remove the Mayor. That may sound a lot, but it is small compared to the size of the overall London electorate of 5.1 million. It would mean that less than 4 per cent. of the London electorate could decide to get rid of the Mayor.

Michael Gove (Shadow Minister (Housing), Communities and Local Government; Surrey Heath, Conservative)

Does not membership of the Labour party nationally stand at about 186,000? Therefore, the number of people suitable to elect the next Prime Minister is surely also suitable to decide whether we should have a referendum on the continuation of the mayoral office?

Jim Fitzpatrick (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Trade and Industry; Poplar & Canning Town, Labour)

The number of people mentioned in the new clause represents 3.8 per cent. of Londoners. There is another significant factor. The new clause would allow the Mayor to be removed from office but to stand again for re-election at a subsequent by-election. Returning to the comment from my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North about Mayor Barry in Washington, who was re-elected on several occasions despite accusations against him, we could have an endless cycle of petition, removal of the Mayor, re-election of the Mayor, petition and so on. I have not even mentioned the cost, but this could become an expensive and time-consuming process and would prevent the Mayor from focusing on tackling London’s problems.

Furthermore, as I mentioned earlier to the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Fulham, the new clause would give the Secretary of State power to determine the arrangements, including the minimum threshold, for achieving a successful petition.

Greg Hands (Hammersmith & Fulham, Conservative)

Does the Minister not agree that there is an irony in discussing this matter as, if I am not mistaken, he and most Labour Members were instrumental in trying to prevent the current incumbent from being on the ballot paper in the first place in 2000?

Jim Fitzpatrick (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Trade and Industry; Poplar & Canning Town, Labour)

Clearly we were singularly successful in that regard.

Such control of the petition process by the Government would cut against one of the key underlying principles of the 1999 Act, which is that the constitutional arrangements for the GLA should be set out, as far as possible, in primary legislation so that the Government of the day cannot easily amend them on the basis of who the Mayor is or is not. Accordingly, the new clause would render the post of Mayor  virtually powerless and the incumbent threatened with dismissal by continual submissions from special interest groups.

Perhaps that is what Opposition Members ultimately want. However, the Government believe in a strong Mayor, whoever he is, with a clear democratic mandate. That person should be able to take forward his vision for London and address the considerable challenges that the capital faces. On that basis, I urge hon. Members not to press the new clauses.

Michael Gove (Shadow Minister (Housing), Communities and Local Government; Surrey Heath, Conservative)

I can tell that the Minister does not like our new clause, but there were some semi-supportive comments from a couple of Labour Back Benchers, so it is only appropriate that we have a Division when the time comes. It will be revealing to see which members of the Committee believe in having the most democratic model appropriate adopted in relation to London’s Mayor.

Tom Brake (Shadow Minister, Department for Communities and Local Government; Carshalton & Wallington, Liberal Democrat)

There is much merit to new clause 3. However, I concede that the arguments in favour have perhaps not been deployed as judiciously as possible, and clearly there is still time to regroup, return to the fray and develop the arguments, perhaps in another place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.