| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
City of London (Ward Elections) Bill (By Order)
Order for Second Reading read.
7.2 pm
Mr. John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Before the start of the debate, will you clarify the exact process whereby declarations of interest, specifically with regard to the City of London corporation, should be made before contributions are made to the debate? In particular, I refer you to the code of conduct together with the "Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members", which says on page 8, in paragraph 11:
- "Any Member having a registrable interest which has not at the time been registered, shall not undertake any action, speech or proceeding of the House (save voting) to which the registration would be relevant until notification has been given to the Commissioner for Standards of that interest."
Will you rule whether being a Freemason falls within any of those categories, in particular the miscellaneous category, and is therefore an interest that should be registered and declared by a Member and, if it is not declared, that Member should not be taking part in this debate, save by voting?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst):
That is not a matter on which I can rule at this point. Any further clarification that is required on the standards to be observed by hon. Members must come from the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, not from the Chair on an occasion such as this.
Mr. McDonnell:
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like clarification. It has been alleged that the Bill--and therefore the debate--contravenes the first protocol of the European convention for the protection of fundamental human rights and freedoms, which was conferred into British law by this Parliament after the passing of the Human Rights Act 1998. That protocol relates to the right to free elections. It states in article 3:
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
It is not a matter for the Chair to make that determination. It is a matter for the courts. The point that the hon. Gentleman seeks to make as a point of order can certainly be raised in the debate.
Mr. McDonnell:
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you therefore clarify the
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
The hon. Gentleman flatters the Chair in thinking that the Chair can rule on such matters. The role of the Chair is entirely to rule on matters of order in this House, dealing with the business that comes before the House for debate. What the hon. Gentleman seeks is outside my capacity.
Mr. Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough):
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It should not be allowed to remain on the record that the House could be in any way conducting an illegal sitting or proceedings. The House of Commons is entirely sovereign and we are duly elected to represent our constituents. It should not be thought for a minute that the House could in any way act illegally.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
I hope that no such implication was made in the exchanges so far.
Mr. McDonnell:
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Of course, there was no such implication. However, we have enacted the human rights legislation, and it makes illegal any act in the United Kingdom that is in contravention of the European convention for the protection of fundamental human rights and freedoms or the furtherance of any such act. It is therefore important that, before the debate proceeds further, we should have clear guidance, if necessary from the Lord Chancellor's Department. I accept that this body is sovereign, and in our sovereignty, we passed the human rights legislation, this time last year, to sign up to the protocol. It is therefore critical--
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. The hon. Gentleman is now clearly straying into the realms of debate. He may have an opportunity to catch my eye if he wishes to develop that argument, but the Bill before us has patently not yet been passed into legislation. If there were any suggestion that it was incompatible with other legislation, that would be a matter for the courts, certainly not for the Chair on this occasion.
Mr. McDonnell:
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not want to strain your patience--you have been exceptionally good to me so far.
The debate takes place under Standing Order No. 20 of "Standing Orders of the House of Commons--Public Business 1999". The Bill is private business and the Standing Order relates to private business. The motion in my name and that of my hon. Friends to delay consideration of the Bill proposes:
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
It is entirely within the discretion of the Chairman of Ways and Means when to
Mr. McDonnell:
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is there any method by which the Chair must explain his or her ruling on those matters and the grounds on which that timetabling has been decided, and other business has not been given priority? I would welcome, as I am sure other hon. Members would, the opportunity to debate that procedure.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
No, there is no such opportunity. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to criticise decisions of the Chair, he must do so on a substantive motion. I am merely trying better to order the business that comes before the House. Certain slots have to be provided for the disposal of private business, and I have tried to discharge that function in a perfectly impartial way.
Mr. McDonnell:
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. No criticism was intended; I am engaged in an honest search for the truth and clarification, and I thank you for that.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Peter Brooke (Cities of London and Westminster):
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Many things in the City of London have a very long history. The local electoral system dealt with in the Bill is certainly one of them. In recent times, the shortcomings of the system have been the subject of some criticism--shortcomings that have been recognised by the City corporation itself.
Dealing with those shortcomings legislatively has, however, been less straightforward, but it is what the corporation seeks to do in the measure. It does so in the context that none of the political parties now has a policy of abolishing the corporation, so the issue is one of reform and of how the City's various interests may be more evenly represented.
Although the Bill is corrective in nature, it would be quite wrong to infer that local government in the City has failed to work. The reverse is the case. The common council, which discharges the local authority functions in the City, is widely credited for its innovative activities. Indeed, one of the foundations of the success of the City as the leading international financial centre is the support that is given by its own dedicated local authority, to which the present Prime Minister testified in a lecture in the City in September 1996.
The corporation's support for democratic rights also has a long history. This speech is not the occasion for that trawl through history, but it is perhaps worth recalling that the passage of the Great Reform Bill of 1832 through the House followed strident petitions to Parliament from the City civic urging those reforms.
The last royal commission on London local government, which sat for three years between 1957 and 1960--perhaps I should declare an interest and say that it
was appointed by my father--recognised the distinct nature of local government in the City, and recommended its retention.
The approach of the commission has been continued by the present Government. In their Green Paper "New Leadership for London", the Government stated in paragraphs 1.10:
"The High Contracting Parties"--
the United Kingdom Government--
"undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people"--
not business--
"in the choice of the legislature."
The issue is that, our having passed the convention into UK law, the Bill is in contravention of the Human Rights Act and the debate is therefore illegal. I ask for your ruling on that, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
"That the Bill be read a second time upon this day six months."
I accept that, under Standing Order No. 20, it is open to the Chairman of Ways and Means to appoint business, but will you clarify the grounds on which the Bill has been timetabled for consideration today and what reasons there are for doing so before the end of the six-month period?
7.9 pm
"We have made it clear that we do not intend to abolish the City Corporation. In recent years the City Corporation has sought to play a much more positive role in order to promote inward investment and to fund schemes and studies for the benefit of London as a whole. The Corporation has assured the Government that it will continue to develop this work and has accepted that it must respond to the need to improve its electoral arrangements."
Paragraph 1.11 continues:
"The Corporation is currently devising detailed proposals to improve its franchise, including that for Aldermen, so that it represents more accurately the various interests in the Square Mile".
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |