---

Mr. Robert Jackson: I hope that before the hon. Gentleman concludes his speech, he will give his answer to the question that was in the minds of members of the Select Committee about the practicalities of compiling a register for all the employees who work in the City, so that they can participate in the exercise that he describes.

Mr. McDonnell: That is a good point, which I intended to address later in my remarks, but I shall deal with it now. That issue was raised in response to the corporation's proposals, and concerns were expressed about how one would conduct an assessment of the number of employees within a particular business. However, national insurance numbers, payrolls and taxation by the Treasury give us the necessary information.

That information will be compiled and used under the Employment Relations Bill, which has passed through both Houses of Parliament. Under that legislation, ballots will be held among work forces to determine trade union membership and recognition. I do not, therefore, see any outstanding impediment to identifying the number of employees in a company and on a particular site.

Mr. Tony Colman (Putney): I understand that the City of London Labour party did not press that particular amendment when the matter was considered in the Committee. Will my hon. Friend explain why the amendment was not pressed?

Mr. McDonnell: I cannot speak for the City of London Labour party, but I shall try. From my discussion with party members at the end of the Committee proceedings--I apologise to Kate Green and her friends if I have got this wrong--I understood that the corporation was not willing to accept the amendment. I can therefore understand the petitioners' approach. They were keento ensure that the maximum number of their recommendations for improvement were accepted.

14 Jul 1999 : Column 470

In my last conversation with Kate Green, who is the secretary of the City of London Labour party, I accepted that the party would have to compromise on several issues, but I thought that we should try to press the matter further. That is the role of individual Members of this House when petitioners come up against a brick wall. In this case, the corporation was that brick wall because it refused to budge and to accept any further compromise. In such cases, it is the right and the job of Members of Parliament to protect individuals and organisations.

If there had been a chink of light in the corporation's position or any sign of compromise, we could have allowed the Committee to meet again to examine the reforms in more detail. I should have welcomed that. However, members of the City of London Labour party--and, perhaps, the members of the Committee, but they can comment for themselves--may have thought that the corporation would not budge any further so it was not worth them making any more effort.

Mr. Jackson: May I suggest an alternative interpretation of the attitude of the City of London Labour party, which is that it came to the conclusion, as we did in the Committee, that the approach that the hon. Gentleman suggested was not practical? The sources to which he referred may well enable a census to be taken of the number of employees, but if we are talking about giving a franchise to individual employees, we must consider the problem of establishing a valid electoral register when hundreds of thousands of people work in the City and there is a tremendously rapid turnover.

Mr. McDonnell: I understand the practical problems, but I do not think that any of them are insuperable. The most recent estimate of the number of people working with the corporation's boundary was about 250,000 employees. There is a turnover in most constituency electorates. In London constituencies, that turnover can be anywhere between 20 and 30 per cent. of the electorate, and in some instances it is even higher. However, I do not believe that mechanisms cannot be found to overcome those problems.

There is an incentive for employees to come forward and register and, if necessary, to supply verification of their status if they want to vote. The incentive of providing a vote to individual employees would encourage people to come forward, register with the town clerk and provide sufficient information such as a wage slip or a letter from the employer. That would overcome the problems envisaged by the Committee and others. Perhaps we should adjourn the House now and invite the City of London Labour party to provide us with evidence on how to proceed.

Dr. Godman: The hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) raises a difficult but legitimate question about eligibility. However, I offer my hon. Friend the analogy of employees in companies that have works councils. In all such companies of which I am aware, every employee, no matter how new, has the right to vote for representatives on the works council. In those circumstances, we do not apply the same criteria as we do in elections for local government, the Westminster

14 Jul 1999 : Column 471

Parliament or, dare I say it, the Scottish Parliament. The analogy of the works council might be helpful in dealing with an admittedly difficult question.

Mr. McDonnell rose--

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock): Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. McDonnell: Will my hon. Friend first let me respond to the previous intervention?

A useful comparison can be made with works councils, but forms of industrial democracy will develop from the Employment Relations Bill. For example, we shall have the opportunity to ensure that there are accurate registers of people who are employed by a particular company when there are ballots on trade union recognition. We already have the trade union rights commissioner, who can investigate individual claims and disputes about trade union membership within a particular company.

I do not think that the problems will be insuperable, because there is such expertise within the corporation. I pay tribute to the high quality of its staff and officers. Their ingenuity could overcome problems through co-operation employers' bodies.

Mr. Mackinlay: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for not being able to contain myself when I tried to intervene earlier. However, I thought that my hon. Friends the Members for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) and for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) were far too generous to the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson). I find it breathtaking that he can trot out the nonsense that it will be difficult to compile a register. Our registers are a snapshot in time in terms of our territorial rights to be elected. I cannot see how anyone can suggest with any credibility whatsoever that one cannot have a snapshot in time in respect of who is on the payroll of companies in the City of London on a particular date. It is breathtaking in the extreme that anyone could advance such nonsense in the House.

Mr. McDonnell: I am a man of temperate language and moderation, a man of the middle of the road if not the middle way.

Let me return to the point that I was making about the practicalities. The hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), who chaired the Select Committee, may not recall the final statement by the City of London Labour party. It accepted that to amend the Bill to incorporate the principle of payroll votes would be a fundamental change. At that stage, it was anxious that such a proposal might be ruled out of order, but as a result of my amendments, that was not the case. It stated that such a change

"would require substantial redrafting and may not be possible without substantially altering the Bill to such an extent that it would not be before this Committee, but would be re-presented."

If we agree tonight that the Bill should be amended in that way, the City of London corporation will be saved the time, money and expensive lawyers involved in having the Bill re-presented.

14 Jul 1999 : Column 472

Mr. Haines, who was representing the City of London Labour party continued:

"We take the view that the first steps towards City reform outlined in the Bill will not be the last."

That was certainly the burden of our discussions with the City corporation. By all accounts, they were constructive meetings that were conducted in good humour. The City of London Labour party representative continued:

"We will monitor this new franchise and how it works in practice. We are pleased to have the opportunity to put the case for payroll votes now on the record for future consideration if required."

That statement gave us the incentive to move our amendments tonight. The City of London Labour party was clearly constrained by the fact that it thought that such a proposal went beyond the Bill. That is clearly not the case, therefore we can discuss it tonight.

The amendments seek to empower people who work in the City. I find it fascinating that my amendments would return the City corporation to its original roots and objectives and to its original method of representation. I am a traditionalist in that I seek to return the City corporation to its worker traditions.

In the middle ages, the City comprised workers, business people and tradespeople who set up an organisation to represent their interests. It was a protosoviet--an embryonic workers' council. Although it was bourgeois, Trotsky would have appreciated it. In my opinion, the City corporation has the same line of ancestry as the Petrograd soviet. It was a group of workers coming together to seek representation. The amendments return to the tradition of employees and workers demanding some say about their working environment where they spend eight to 12 hours a day, or longer.

I have gone through the history of the City of London. The idea of freemen of the City of London goes back to Roman times. It involved business men who were engaged in various trades and who had specific rights. The system continued into the middle ages without charter or incorporation. In its statement on the origins of its constitutional functions, the City corporation described itself as a commune. Its ancestry is clear. It is Marxist history--E. P. Thompson all over again. After the royal sanction, the City corporation established its rights on behalf of the workers--the freemen who worked in the City--through the guilds. It is fascinating that the rights of individual employees pervades the history of the City of London.

---