Nick Lyons, Lord Mayor Of The City Of London, Overstays His Term In Office

This afternoon, Nick Lyons will symbolically hand over the role of Lord Mayor to his successor during the silly “Silent Ceremony”, which lasts for twenty minutes that seem like two hours. 

Lyons’ mayoralty has not been a success. 

In June 2023, we reported that a national newspaper had identified his hypocrisy thus: 

“The lord mayor of London, who is calling for the vast majority of pensions to be allowed to make risky investments, is believed to be a member of a number of gold-plated schemes that would be unaffected by his proposal.”

In September 2023, we reported that he tried to intimidate a woman councillor in his own ward, and reproduced the messages by which he did so.

In October 2023, we reported that he was humiliated by appearing in a photo for the laying of a foundation stone which bore the name of Christopher Hayward, the chair of policy (= leader of the City of London council), but not his own name as Lord Mayor, illustrating how emasculated the role of Lord Mayor has become.

Now, in November 2023, we can reveal that he has stayed in office as an alderman and Lord Mayor for two months after his term of office as an alderman expired in September 2023. He apparently hoped that no-one would notice, or – if they did – would not say anything about this rule bending, given the cultish deference that many City elected members display towards those in “high” office. That hope may have been fulfilled had not Alderwoman Martha Grekos called out his casual disrespect for the rule of law.

We reproduce below an email exchange between her and him on 6/11/23, which has been seen by all members of the City council. We have received the text of those emails from more than one Guildhall source, which indicates that some people there think this matter deserves the attention of the public.      

EMAIL FROM MARTHA GREKOS TO ALL ALDERS AND COUNCILLORS 

I have recently raised an issue about alders’ compliance with their conventional six year terms of office. I have done so by email and in conversations only with other alders and relevant officers. I have, though, discovered that a number of other people within the Corporation are aware that I have raised the issue. That being so, and since the issue potentially affects the reputation of the Corporation as a whole, which is of equal interest to alders and councillors, I describe the issue in this email and propose a couple of solutions.

Background

Two months ago in a meeting of the Court of Alders, one alder asked why another alder, whose last election was – according to the Corporation’s website – held in August 2017, had not yet submitted his ‘letter of surrender of office’ to trigger the next election. The alder concerned said that he was first elected in 2013, and again following his year as Lord Mayor.

Last month, the minutes of the meeting were published, but they omitted this exchange. All alders had not, in the meantime, been given an answer to the question. So I wrote to the Town Clerk’s department, copying the other alders, to ask for the answer. We were told that the relevant data on the Corporation’s website was wrong: the last election of the alder concerned was held in August 2019, so his six year term had not yet expired. We were also told that this was not the only incorrect electoral data on the website, so a data cleanse had been undertaken. The ‘term of office’ sections of all alders’ and all councillors’ profiles on the website had consequently been removed. I have since been told that they should be reinstated shortly with correct information.

The alders were then given a preview of their cleansed electoral data, which gave rise to the following issue.

Issue

It appears from the cleansed data that the last election of Nick Lyons, the current Lord Mayor, was held in September 2017. This means that his six year term of office as an alder ended two months ago, but his letter of surrender of office has yet to be submitted. I raised this issue among the alders.

A senior alder replied, saying that an alder should submit their letter of surrender of office “at the first Court [of Alders] date following their [sixth] anniversary [of last being elected] (if not sooner) and an election held as soon as practicable thereafter. Where an alder is retiring permanently we have precedent to extend by a small margin, given that legally an alder is elected for life. However flagrant abuse of the six year convention or for that matter the rule of 75 [retiring after turning 75 years old] would need to be handled firmly by the Court”.

I responded to say that the Lord Mayor should therefore have submitted his letter of surrender of office at the Court of Alders meeting last month at the latest.

The “precedent to extend” does not apply if he intends to seek re-election, which I understand he does. I address below how any extension of a term beyond the conventional six years is inconsistent with the rule of law, which the Corporation purports to uphold.

Some alders and councillors have since given me their explanations of why the Lord Mayor’s breach of the six year convention is justified. None of these explanations add up. I set out the explanations given to me in bold below, followed in each case by my comments.

(1) It is not feasible for the Lord Mayor to submit his letter of surrender of office before his mayoralty concludes, as it would not be appropriate for a serving Lord Mayor to sign and issue his own precept and thereby authorise his own election to be called. It is also probably not practical for a serving Lord Mayor to campaign effectively during the mayoralty while undertaking mayoral duties.

Why is it not “appropriate” for the Lord Mayor to sign and issue the precept, when that would ensure compliance with the six year convention?

The impracticality of a Lord Mayor campaigning does not apply in this case, because the election would be held after his mayoralty had ceased.

In any event, and most importantly, he could have avoided this situation by calling an election before taking office as Lord Mayor so his six year term as an alder would not expire during his mayoralty. That is what Sue Langley did before taking office as Sheriff.

(2) Alders are elected for life.

That is a medieval law, and is antithetical to democracy. The six year convention was introduced to democratise this aspect of the Corporation’s governance. Alders should therefore treat the convention as if it were law. Relying even a little on a medieval law, such as in exercising a discretion to extend the six year term, is repugnant to the rule of law, and brings the Corporation into disrepute.

(3) There is precedent for extending the six year term.

There is precedent for the breach of any rule, but that does not excuse the breach. No judge would entertain a defendant’s argument that they should be excused from liability because someone else had previously breached the same rule.

The most notorious precedent in recent times was David Graves overstaying in office as an alder for a full two years. The pandemic was used as an excuse, but he did not submit his letter of surrender of office until long after public Corporation events were being held again, and even after a general councillor election was held. The exposure of that overstaying caused reputational harm to the Corporation.

(4) This is not the Lord Mayor’s fault: Mansion House staff made a mistake and did not inform him.

It is not the job of Mansion House staff to keep track of his term of office as an alder: that is his personal responsibility.

Blaming officers for a member’s “mistake” is not acceptable.

(5) The Lord Mayor should not submit his letter of surrender of office until February 2024 when the new ward lists take effect, so as to ensure a fair and democratic election.

Every ward list starts to go out of date as soon as it takes effect. That is a consequence of the Corporation not having a system of rolling registration, unlike every other local authority. This is one of several democratic defects in the City. It should not be fixed, though, by allowing alders to overstay in office – by several months, in this case – and this is no justification for breaching the convention. In any case, many electors in business wards do not vote, whether the ward list is up to date or not, which is an even greater democratic defect.

Solutions

(1) The Lord Mayor should mitigate his breach of the six year convention by submitting his letter of surrender of office now. A special meeting of the Court of Alders could be convened for that purpose before the one scheduled for 5 December 2023. 

(2) The Corporation’s rules should be changed so that an alder is deemed to submit their letter of surrender of office on the earlier of the sixth anniversary of their last election or their 75th birthday. This deemed surrender would automatically trigger the process of an election.  It should ensure universal compliance with the rule of law, and prevent the reputational harm that would ensue by relying on a medieval law to evade it. I will propose this solution at the next alders’ meeting.

REPLY FROM NICK LYONS TO MARTHA GREKOS 

Thank you for sending this to me.  I don’t disagree with anything you say as it happens.  There is one point though that you overlook.  I was not able to hold an election before I became Sheriff because we were still in Covid times.  All CC elections were deferred from March 2021 to March 2022.  I became Sheriff in September 2021 and was already SABTAC * by then.  There does need to be clarification about the timing of elections in regard to CoA choosing SABTAC, which is where the problem primarily lies.

As a politeness, can you please disclose who you sent your email to please?

Thank you

[Name of his assistant], can you please circulate my email above to the Court of Aldermen?  And please also circulate who is on the list of recipients to whom Alderwoman Grekos chose to send her email. I trust that is only to Aldermen and Alderwoman.

RESPONSE FROM MARTHA GREKOS TO NICK LYONS, COPYING ALL ALDERS AND COUNCILLORS

Thank you for the below.

I do not agree that “Covid times” precluded holding an election between March 2020 and September 2021, as the lockdowns covered only part of that period. The deferral of the general councillor elections from March 2021 to March 2022 was controversial: some members argued that the pandemic by that stage was being used as an excuse to stay in office for another year rather than as a genuine reason. In July 2021, the Court of Common Council was again meeting in person. I was also canvassing that summer for my common councillor elections in 2022 (as were other candidates). So nothing would have stopped you being able to have an election then. At that time, voters would have had more protection than members, as they could have voted by post, as many do anyway. In any event, as the 6 years ended in September 2023, there have been two Court of Alders meetings at which the surrender of office could have been given. But it was not.  

I don’t think that the “problem primarily lies” with the “timing of elections in regard to CoA choosing the SABTAC “. I think that the problem lies with not respecting the six year rule as if it were law, which is necessary for democratic governance. And this is why I am raising this as we need to make sure we all respect the rules we impose. 

The long term solution that I have proposed should ensure compliance with this rule, and hope it is approved when the alders next meet.

I sent my email this morning to all members of the Court plus a few senior officers, because – as I explained in the email – I discovered that news of my having raised the issue among the alders and relevant officers had spread to councillors (not through me), who have been giving me their views on the subject. It is, in any case, a subject of equal interest to alders and councillors, as I also explained.

Since you wish your reply to be sent to all who received my email, I am sending this email with your reply below to all the original recipients by the usual blind copy method.

* “SABTAC” means “Senior alderman below the chair”, i.e. the alderman nominated to be “elected” as the next Lord Mayor.

We previously covered David Graves overstaying in office by a full two years. There is no record of the Court of Aldermen at the time “firmly handling” this “flagrant abuse”.   

We have not seen any reply by Lyons to Grekos’ second email, which may indicate that he has run out of excuses.

It will be interesting to see what the “alders” (Grekos’ term for aldermen and alderwomen, which we like and will adopt) do about non-compliance with the six year rule when they next meet on 5/12/23. 

Knowing elected members, we expect that some of them will think they are being clever by solemnly stating that it is a convention, not a “rule”, that alders have six year terms of office. By analogy, much of the UK’s constitution consists of conventions rather than strict law, but those conventions are recognised as having the force of law for the sake of democratic governance. If they were not so recognised, we would be living under a system of absolute monarchy based on medieval laws.

We are aware that one member has sent an email to all others trying to defend the Lord Mayor’s rule bending by mumbling about the need for “flexibility”. The rule of law, by definition, does not admit a “flexible” exception being made to a rule when its application is inconvenient for a particular privileged individual.  

We have heard conflicting reports about whether Lyons will stand again when the election in his ward is eventually triggered by submitting his “letter of surrender of office”. Our advice to him is: don’t. 

By way of a postscript, the City council’s “communications” team has recently been trying to burnish Lyons’ tarnished image by placing these two “interviews” with the local poodle press, City A.M. and City Matters, both of which have for years received funding from the council and have a track record of not publishing unfavourable news about it: https://www.cityam.com/lord-mayor-nicholas-lyons-i-will-miss-doing-this-but-ill-love-being-out-of-the-public-eye/ (in which Lyons reveals his poor judgment by taking advice from Peter Mandelson, of all people) and https://www.citymatters.london/interview-lord-mayor-of-london-interview/.

The problem with these “interviews” is that they are so obsequious and such an obvious PR exercise that only the most gullible reader would take them seriously. Try as the council may to control its image, “truth will out” – and not through the pages of its local Pravda organs.