Title

Boris Johnson's claims on cronyism do not survive detailed scrutiny, according to Nick Raynsford Term limits for councillors are clearly not going to go away as a subject of debate. After the controversial recommendation from the Councillors' Commission, prompted by a desire to ‘open up' councils to a younger and more diverse group of elected representatives, we now have Boris Johnson calling for a two-term limit on the length of time the mayor of London can serve. Mr Johnson bases his case on grounds that prolonged periods of rule by a single mayor create a risk of cronyism. On the surface, it sounds a plausible case, but it does not survive detailed scrutiny. If the argument applies to mayors, then it can equally be applied to council leaders and cabinet members. And, of course, there is no logic in imposing term limits on local government if they do not apply also to central government. When we were creating the Greater London Authority a decade ago, we debated the merits of a time limit on the office of mayor, but concluded it would be incongruous to apply such a limit uniquely to the London mayoralty. If term limits were introduced, this would have to be part of a wider reform applying to all tiers of government. Equally, it doesn't take much to conclude that cronyism is not something only likely to arise after two terms of government. The risk is there from the outset. We, therefore, imposed clear rules linking the mayor's power to appoint individuals to his private office. We recognised the case for having some specialist advisers appointed by and answerable to the mayor, rather than the assembly. Otherwise, the mayor would be wholly dependent for expert advice on people appointed by and answering to his scrutinisers. But, as Clause 67 of the Greater London Authority Act makes clear, their number is strictly prescribed. So, too, is the basis of their appointment. Only two ‘political' appointees are permitted – the equivalent of special advisers in a minister's office, or political advisers in local government. Additionally, the mayor is allowed to appoint up to 10 others, but their appointment has to be on merit. This distinction between the two political and up to 10 ‘specialist' advisers was to some extent blurred during Ken Livingstone's mayoralty, and he himself paid a heavy price for the criticism to which he was subjected on this score. It is, therefore, astonishing to see Mr Johnson failing to follow the requirements of Section 67 of the GLA Act. A large number of mayoral appointments have been reported in the press, including several people with strong personal or political ties to the mayor. Some would appear to be explicitly precluded from employment by the Widdicombe rules and Section 69 of the GLA Act, which bans individuals from serving as councillors at the same time as being employed as GLA senior officers. The suggestion which has been made at City Hall that these rules need not apply if the individuals are designated ‘consultants', rather than employees, makes a mockery of the process. Furthermore, the ambiguity which has characterised the basis on which many of the mayor's appointments have been made, and the lack of open competition, calls into question the degree to which the principle of appointment or merit has been respected. Simply writing a job description for the post and having an independent person present at the appointment interview looks suspiciously like a fig leaf implying adherence to the letter of the law, when its spirit has been so obviously breached. In making these comments, I do not impugn the character of any of the individuals whose appointments have been announced to date. Many have enjoyed distinguished careers in the political and governmental field. But the way their services appear to have been secured by the mayor leaves them dangerously exposed to the very charge of cronyism which Mr Johnson levelled against his predecessor. This cannot be in the best interests of London Government. Nick Raynsford is former local government minister

Title

WHITEHALL

Boris must check the law

SUBSCRIBE TO CONTINUE READING