| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman fairly concedes that the City has looked after places such as Epping forest and Burnham Beeches very well. How will the Bill change that? Already on the court of common council there are business people, men and women. The difficulty at the moment is that the franchise is restricted to certain trades because of the nature of the franchise. There are butchers, barristers and chartered accountants, but those people have not restricted the money that is spent on Burnham Beeches and Epping forest. So why, if one extends the franchise to encompass all sorts of other trading activities in the City, should the City somehow become more selfish and more inward looking?
Mr. Cohen: I hear the hon. Gentleman's point. I have not been critical of the corporation of London. In certain respects, I have--in individual cases where I do not think that it has done a good enough job for my local area--but the general point is that it has run matters well. However, we will have an altered balance of the franchise and businesses. Some will have foreign interests, as the Open Spaces Society has said, little interest in the City and even less interest in the area outside the City for which the corporation is responsible.
The hon. Gentleman may be right in suggesting that the policy will not change. I certainly hope that that is the case, but by changing the franchise it puts at risk that
commitment. That is why I object--to ensure that that commitment is absolutely maintained. That is my main concern.
Mrs. Jacqui Lait (Beckenham):
I apologise for the fact that, although I have been here for all the hon. Gentleman's speech, I was late in arriving.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, although the businesses may be owned outside the United Kingdom, the people whom they will be nominating to vote--
Mrs. Lait:
May I finish my point? The people whom those business will be nominating to vote have to be qualified to vote in a British election. Although they have to be either British citizens, European Union citizens or Commonwealth citizens, they have to live here, too. They are therefore not people who will have been parachuted in for the pleasure of sitting in on endless common council meetings.
Mr. Cohen:
I appreciate the hon. Lady's point, but the Open Spaces Society does not agree with it. The society stated that the businesses that will now have the vote
I am therefore not convinced by the point made by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait)--that the new representatives will be dead keen to live in the City, to be active there and to work 100 per cent. in the City's best interests. I am certainly not convinced that they will automatically be interested in the City's functions outside the square mile. I also suspect that they will not be much interested in the Epping forest land in my constituency--but I am. I am very concerned about it, as are my constituents. We want to ensure that we receive assurances that the current commitment will be maintained and even increased.
Mr. McDonnell
: It is critical that we clarify the point. I have searched the Bill, and--as my hon. Friend has pointed out in the letters he is quoting from the City of London Labour party and the Open Spaces Society--it would impose no residency condition. There is no residency qualification.
Mr. Cohen:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for clarifying the point.
The Open Spaces Society points out that the corporation is responsible for the management and conservation of more than 10,000 acres--more than 15 square miles--of open space. Those spaces are paid for out of the City's cash account--the private fund which
has been built over the centuries and was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster. Mr. Selwyn said:
I should like to provide an example--in which my hon. Friend the Minister for London and Construction might be quite interested--of the effects of the secrecy. The Government have a new deal policy, in which one option for young people is to serve on an environmental task force, doing environmental work. The City of London corporation should want to assist the Government in the project. Perhaps we should expect the corporation to help financially with the project. However, the corporation might say, "We don't have the funds to do it", or, "We're not really interested in helping the Government or in getting young people into training and working on an environmental task force." All the time, it could be sitting on top of secret funds totalling millions of pounds, which could be helping young people and the Government's policy. That is only one example of why there should be accountability of and transparency in City's cash.
The public might have some interest--
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst):
Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his point on that matter, which seems to fall well outside the scope of the Bill.
Mr. Cohen:
I take the point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am saying only that there should be some transparency and accountability about City's cash. The new representatives, who will be elected on the basis of the new franchise, might say, "We don't have the money to maintain current open-spaces policies and commitments", whereas in secret they will have the money. I think that people should know the exact situation.
I should like to deal with a few local issues, if my hon. Friends will allow me to do so--I know that they would like to return to the main issue of the democratic deficit. Nevertheless, there are a few constituency matters in relation to the open spaces and the corporation's policies. I should like to mention some of them, not least because I might get them in the local newspapers and please the local residents.
The Hollow pond is run by the City of London corporation, at Whipps Cross, and is heavily used. Parts of it have become quite barren, and it requires proper replanting. There should be a better policy to that end. The land is used very heavily, proportionately more than other parts of Epping forest. Moreover, there has been much work on the M11 link road in the neighbouring area.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. The hon. Gentleman has flagged this section of his speech too obviously, as it were. I really cannot accept that it is within the scope of the Bill.
Mr. Cohen:
I do apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
In his reply, I should like to hear from the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster how the new franchise and election of a new common council will impact on those local issues. That information would interest my constituents, who clearly want the Hollow pond at Whipps Cross to be maintained and improved. The pond that has dried up and was just left at the junction--
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. The hon. Gentleman is now acting in defiance of my ruling. I tell him that the matter is outwith this debate. He has made his point generally, which is permissible, but he is now going far too far.
Mr. Cohen:
I shall not pursue the matter further today, but I will pursue it in writing with the corporation, as it affects my constituents--such as an individual who wants, for example, to locate a bench with a plaque to his mother, but has been turned down.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has understood my ruling. I make it quite clear that he will be out of order if he continues on the same line.
Mr. Cohen:
I do apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall not do it again.
Mr. Martin Bell (Tatton):
I shall be extremely brief, as I am trying to set an example of brief speeches. No one pays any attention, but I hope that it will assist anyway.
I speak in the debate not because I have any political interests or ambitions in London; my only political ambition is to complete one term as Member of Parliament for Tatton. There are, however, some important issues of democracy in the Bill, and the people of Tatton have shown rather clearly that they care a great deal about that. We are grateful especially to Mr. Matson for pointing out that this is a suggested retreat from the principle of the universal franchise and we should think very seriously before we go along with that retreat.
"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 a very real concern to the Open Spaces Society.
"However, we regret that no accounts of this fund are published although the expenditure has to be approved by the common council and the duties are subject to statutory requirements."
I heard the comments made by the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster on annual estimates. Although that concession is welcome, it is wrong for there to be such secrecy surrounding details of the fund, which is so important to Londoners. The matter should be opened up.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |