| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Robert Jackson: The hon. Gentleman accuses the Committee of dereliction of duty, but we were confined
to the requests that were put before us by petitioners. It was our duty to consider those. Human rights were not raised by any of the petitioners.
Mr. McDonnell: I should have thought that any Committee should take into account the Second Reading debate and the matters raised in it, if only for the background and the environment in which it considers the legislation. I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman if he wants to explain why the Committee did not take cognisance of the Second Reading debate. The human rights convention was a critical issue in that debate, yet the Committee blatantly ignored it. Members of the Committee pursued its practices and considered the matter, possibly thereby incurring some liability in the future.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot pursue a Second Reading matter. He must deal with the amendment that he is moving.
Mr. McDonnell: In mitigation, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think that I was provoked to enter into debate on that matter because of the intervention, but I will not test your patience any further.
The special report lays out a number of interesting suggestions for the City corporation and, in that respect, I congratulate the Committee for at least identifying the fact that the Bill is flawed and stating that it should be part of a wider reform process. In other words, it is the first step on a long path to establish some form of democratic government within the City corporation to protect the rights of the residents. It is in that context that I tabled my amendments.
The need for reform is beyond doubt. The City of London corporation accepts the need for reform, although it does not implement reforms. Indeed, in an almost jocular way, it ignored most of the recommendations that have been made so far. The statement agrees that reform is needed, but the tragedy is that none of the recommendations can be contained in the Bill. That most significant point was made by the Chairman and other members of the Committee. The Bill will do little to achieve a process whereby we can have confidence that the corporation will reflect the interests of its residents or even of its business community.
The statement includes a range of recommendations for the promotion of reform. However, most of them rely on the good will of the corporation--that is why I tabled my amendments. It has taken 600 years to rely on the good will of the corporation.
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas (Harrow, West):
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. McDonnell:
I will give way if my hon. Friend wants to correct the number of years.
Mr. McDonnell:
That is a millennium achievement for the corporation.
The amendments attempt to redress the balance, because the Bill fails to tackle the problems ofthe democratic deficit of the corporation. Most of the
recommendations in the special report of the Committee rely on the corporation to review boundaries, to examine internal or external boundaries, or to obtain legal advice on its powers. The corporation does not seem to have enacted even that recommendation--or, if it has, none of us is aware of it. If the corporation has obtained legal advice and hon. Members have seen it, I should be happy to read a copy of it. In relation to the recommendations on boundary review, why can not the corporation use the boundary commission like any other local government body? We have received no commitment in writing from the corporation that it has approached the boundary commission.
In the statement, there is an admission that the right of veto on the common council of the City of London still exists. Before I tabled my amendments, I hoped that there would be one letter from the corporation stating that it would withdraw the veto. We can all remember cases of individuals who were vetoed, even after their election. The classic example is Mr. Malcolm Matson. I understand that he communicated with several hon. Members before Second Reading.
The amendments attempt to move the measure forward within its own constraints. I tabled other amendments, which were not selected. They would have ensured that the residents had a controlling vote. It may have been rather ambitious to attempt to abolish the business franchise through my amendments.
The corporation is the last vestige of undemocratic privilege within our system of government that is formally constituted in legislation. It is the last hurdle--the last hedge that we must go over.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. I detect Second Reading general arguments in what the hon. Gentleman has said so far. He must now turn to the specific and narrow terms of the amendments if he wants to persuade the House that they should be accepted.
Mr. McDonnell:
I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but there is a background to the amendments that needs explanation. It is the undemocratic nature of the existing system. We must explore that to ensure that the amendments tackle the problems that are part of the undemocratic privilege exercised by the City of London corporation.
Mr. Michael Connarty (Falkirk, East):
I commend my hon. Friend for filling in those details for some of us who did not follow closely the Second Reading debate. I hope that the Chair will not interrupt so much in future.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw that comment. It was quite disgraceful.
Mr. Connarty:
I apologise if the Chair is offended. However, Back Benchers should be defended by the Chair. I hope you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will defend our right to hear someone who is clearly knowledgeable, so that we can fill in the background. I apologise if you were offended by the way that I put it.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. The role of the Chair is to ensure that the debate, whatever its content, is
Mr. McDonnell:
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Inverclyde):
May I ask a question about amendment No. 13? I understand that that amendment would give relevant employees the right to stand for election as a voter. If the amendment were passed, would every employee in a City establishment--within the square mile--have the right to stand as a voter representing that company? I have more than a passing interest in the matter; I am a council house tenant of the City of London corporation and a peripatetic constituent of the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), who is one of the supporters of the Bill.
Mr. McDonnell:
I am not sure whether there are any amendments on peripatetic voting, but I advise my hon. Friend not to suggest that to the corporation. Even if we cannot achieve full, universal, adult suffrage for the corporation--as there is in the rest of the country and in America and in most European and other states--at least, given the argument that it is a business district, the employees who make the wealth of that area should be able to vote. That is the purpose of my amendments. [Interruption.] I do not know whether that was an intervention or a sedentary comment.
Initially, I wanted to establish universal suffrage, but that was rejected by the corporation. In Committee, representatives of the City of London Labour party--I apologise for not being able to consult them directly, because I should have welcomed the opportunity to discuss the amendments with them--proposed that votes should relate to the number of staff employed by bodies within the City. They referred to that system as the payroll vote. That is what my amendments suggest.
Under the existing system, the vote is cast by the business itself, rather than by a person who is either a local resident or an employee who daily earns his or her living in the City. Even under the proposals in the Bill, the vote will be owned by the business. The amendments would ensure that there is at least some link between those who reside or work in the City and the exercise of power by the corporation. On Second Reading, we did not discuss the existing system.
As hon. Members know, the court of common council is one element within the corporation. It comprises 25 aldermen, including the lord mayor and about
130 common council men. I appreciate that the corporation has offered to reduce that number as part of its reforms. In effect, that body becomes the government of the City because it operates the functions of local government. It is therefore the key body that we want to influence. We want to ensure that it has some connection to those who live in the City and, more importantly in this debate and what is permissible within the context of the Bill, those who work there. Other elements of the corporation include the court of aldermen, which has 25 members, and the common hall.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |