---

Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton and Wanstead): As Epping forest is in my constituency, this concerns me very much. The right hon. Gentleman says that the legislation will not change; but will the money change? If there were more members of the common council interested only in keeping costs down in the centre, with no commitment to open spaces outside the centre, could they, under the proposed voting system, have more power to cut financial support for the open spaces?

Mr. Brooke: I was going to deal with the money aspect, because I knew that the hon. Gentleman was concerned about it. I can say, however, that in addition to the many initiatives, costing about £40 million a year, that the City maintains--initiatives that are available to everyone in London, which are supported by the City fund and include the Barbican--there is a separate resource, known as City's cash, consisting of the accumulated wealth of merchants who have left money to the City for eight centuries. It is with some of that money that Epping forest is maintained. Although councillors will continue to take an interest, and, presumably, will make decisions, the funds supporting Epping forest are nothing to do with local government finance.

24 Feb 1999 : Column 460

Although the expenditure involved in administering open spaces and the like outside the City does not constitute public expenditure, I am advised that the corporation will make available the annual estimates for them. I am sure that the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) will be able to see those estimates.

The Bill is the culmination of wide-ranging consultation within the City business community, and with residents, as well as with the Government and other interested parties. It offers a solution that, in the corporation's view, addresses the particular circumstances of the City, consistent with the White Paper.

7.47 pm

Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton and Wanstead): I am the first listed objector to the Bill, but I presume that others will wish to speak.

I am grateful for the way in which the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) expressed his support for the Bill. He accepted a number of interventions, and tried to respond to them. At one point, he said that he wanted to get on because he wanted to find out how his speech would end. We are pleased to have heard the end of the speech--but I am not sure that it was worth it.

The last time I crossed swords with the right hon. Gentleman on a private Bill was when he sponsored a Bill that related to the City of Westminster. I spoke against it for nearly three hours. I do not intend to speak for anywhere near that long tonight, but as I listened to the right hon. Gentleman's speech, I recalled that his Bill dealt with a number of businesses in Westminster, such as porn shops. I wondered whether, if the principles being applied to the business community of the City of London--allowing that community all the votes--applied to Westminster, the right hon. Gentleman would represent the porn shops.

The Bill creates a huge democratic deficit. In fact, "deficit" is a kind description; it is really a democratic negation. My hon. Friends will say more about this, but the City of London Labour party has pointed out that the residents' share of the franchise will fall from its current 25 per cent. or thereabouts to less than 10 per cent., and that voters could be nominated by occupiers or agents who might live anywhere: they might not even be United Kingdom citizens, and might not even have set foot in the City of London.

The City of London Labour party also points out that there are no guarantees in the Bill for residents, and that their position will be worse. It states:

"Business interests should not be allowed to override those of residents, as they do now, in matters like planning, traffic and the environment."

That is a fair point. Like any other local authority, the court of common council will discuss those local issues: planning, traffic, the environment in the City. It should be the residents--because they are the ones who will be affected by decisions in the main--who exercise that democratic element.

Mention was made of representations by Malcolm Matson. I have his letter. Presumably, it was sent to other hon. Members.

Mr. Baldry: In certain parts of the City, there are practically no residents. For example, the ward of

24 Feb 1999 : Column 461

Farringdon Without has a substantial electoral roll, but it is made up mostly of members in the Temple, and people working in Smithfield and a diversity of other trades. There are few residents, so how will such an area in London and the City be properly represented? Who will represent it? Who will vote in that ward? Will it be left just as a void, or will residents in some other part of the City be expected, under the hon. Gentleman's ideas, to represent the people who live and work in Farringdon Without?

Mr. Cohen: I am surprised at that intervention. The key principle is that residents should be the voters, rather than businesses, which are in many ways absent in terms of business interests; perhaps their headquarters are elsewhere, too. However, some constituencies for this Parliament are very far flung because that is the way in which we achieve an equal number of residents voting. I do not see why all the wards have to be of an equal size in any system. Therefore, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's point applies.

Mr. Matson sent a letter on the Bill to hon. Members. It said:

"the Corporation of London wants to extend . . . the undemocratic 'business vote'.


Actually the proposal is even more bizarre.


The Bill is the first retreat from the principle of universal suffrage since the Reform Act of 1832 . . . which began a long march to 'one person one vote'.


The Bill will give votes to companies and other bodies according to the rateable value of their offices. The higher the rateable value the more votes they will get.


For the first time in a modern western democracy you will be able to buy as many votes in an election for a local authority as you can afford--just keep on adding to your property portfolio!"

He calls on us to stop "the last rotten borough". That is a good summary of what I politely describe as the democratic deficit. My hon. Friends will want to say more about that, but the corporation of London should rethink that aspect.

As I have said, there are no guarantees to residents, but nor are there any guarantees to those who enjoy open spaces that are outside the City of London, but which are owned and run by the corporation. My main reason for objecting to the Bill--it is not just the democratic deficit--involves the representations that I have received from the Open Spaces Society.

Bernard Selwyn, honorary parliamentary consultant of the society, said that the Bill could affect the character of the court of common council and how the corporation's extra-mural duties are carried out, including, of course, those on Epping forest. He says that some constituencies have

"open spaces outside the City which the Corporation has acquired and been proudly and conscientiously maintaining for many years."

I agree. It has done a relatively good job. He says that those open spaces could be put at risk.

Mr. Selwyn adds that the corporation is responsible for the London metropolitan archives, that they should be protected, and that assurances should be given on them as well. He says:

"Over 40,000 new business votes will be created, but some of the existing votes are expected to be replaced by them so that the total electorate will reduce to more than 54,000 of which some 49,000 will be business voters."

24 Feb 1999 : Column 462

He goes on to say:


"Many of the qualifying bodies will be foreign and have no attachment to London except as a financial centre. While we hope that they will take some pride in the traditions and wider interests of the City, some may only wish to ensure that any money raised by rates or from other sources is not used more than can be avoided for purposes of no benefit to themselves, and they may seek to appoint representatives who have no personal connection with London and can be trusted to vote and even stand as candidates for election to the common council solely to protect the selfish concerns of the body appointing them."

That is my concern. If we get more people with that selfish interest, who will be on the common council to stop them spending money on open spaces or to restrict it?

The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster was right to say that the councillors make the decisions on the Epping forest land for which they are responsible, but it will be councillors with that pressure on them--with that electorate. They may say, "That is something that we are not interested in."

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman may have missed a sentence that I said in response to a question that he had asked me. Epping forest is not paid for out of the rates. The pressure that he is describing would not apply in the context of Epping forest. Ever since the City saved it from enclosure in 1878 and subsequently doubled it in size, the forest has been paid for by separate City funds.

Mr. Cohen: I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says and I heard what he said about City's cash, which presumably is a separate fund, but he said that councillors take the decisions regarding Epping forest. Those councillors will have an electorate who may not be interested in Epping forest, so that is the main basis of my objection. I look to protect the interests of my constituents who enjoy Epping forest land. I am grateful that the corporation of London has run it relatively well up to now, but I want that to be maintained and improved.

---