| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
The Minister for London and Construction (Mr. Nick Raynsford): We had a full debate on Second Reading on the merits of the Bill and I do not propose to reiterate that tonight. It is not a Government Bill, but it is the product of the Government's desire to see the City of London reform and modernise its electoral arrangements.
The City is a unique and ancient institution. Its customs and practices are held dear by many people, but it is clear that some of those customs and practices are archaic and do not contribute to good effective and accountable local government. The corporation has recognised this and the current Bill is part of its response.
The Government welcome the fact that the City is beginning to face up to the need to put its governance on a more modern footing. We believe that the proposals in the Bill are a step in the right direction. They recognise the special and unique nature of the square mile and the need for an inclusive form of local government that reflects the needs of all those who have an interest. That must include the companies and institutions established in the City, the workers employed by them and the people who live there.
Mr. John Cryer (Hornchurch):
Is my hon. Friend arguing that basing voting power on wealth or rateable value represents a modernisation of the franchise?
Mr. Raynsford:
If my hon. Friend will bear with me, I shall make the point clearly. We propose changing the current franchise from one that is limited to sole traders and certain people with property interests and excludes the vast majority of firms that operate in the City. It is not essentially a business franchise. The change extends the franchise to businesses in general within the City and that is a step in the right direction.
The Select Committee considered the Bill carefully and found that the measures within it were justified and that the Bill should proceed. It considered the detail of the Bill
and took evidence from its promoters and from petitioners against. As a result, the Committee asked for a number of amendments to be made to the Bill.
Dr. Godman:
I live in the City for some six months of the year. As is well known to my fair-minded adversaries, I am a council tenant of the City of London corporation. Is my hon. Friend satisfied that these developments will not in any way diminish the interests of the residents of the City who number some 5,000 compared with 250,000 people who come into the City every day? Some of my neighbours in Willoughby house in the Barbican are deeply concerned about the measures.
Mr. Raynsford:
I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. The matter was debated extensively on Second Reading. It has been established that while there has been an overall increase in the franchise because of the proposed extension of the business vote, the interests of residents are fully protected because the number of wards with a predominance of residents remains the same. Therefore, the number of councillors who are elected--[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. I say to the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Henderson) before he leaves the Chamber, and to the House in general, that electrical devices of the sort that have interrupted our proceedings should be switched off or left outside the Chamber. Madam Speaker takes an extremely strong line on this.
Mr. Raynsford:
I was explaining, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the make-up of the electoral pattern in the City is such that the wards that are predominantly--
Mr. Ivan Henderson (Harwich):
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for interrupting the proceedings of the House. I shall make sure that it does not happen again.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
I am grateful for that apology.
Mr. Raynsford:
I was in the process of explaining to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) that the number of representatives who represent residents in the City of London will not reduce. Indeed, against the background in which there will be an overall reduction in the total number of councillors, the interests of residents will not be adversely affected. I know that the matter was considered carefully by a number of people who were particularly interested in the issue.
Mr. Raynsford:
I want to make some progress but I shall give way to my hon. Friend, who was a member of the Committee.
Mr. Thomas:
I wonder whether my hon. Friend is aware that one of the reasons why those of us who sat on the Committee agreed to allow the Bill to proceed was the evidence that we received that there are so few voters in some of the wards that there is the potential for abuse, manipulation and a packed vote. Is my hon. Friend aware also that there is a strongly held view, at least by me,
Mr. Raynsford:
My hon. Friend makes two extremely valid points. The process of reform is necessary because the current arrangements, as I have already said, are archaic and not conducive to proper and accountable systems of government. Secondly, as the Committee rightly stressed, a step has been taken in the right direction, but there is a need to go further. I have made that point personally to representatives of the City corporation on several occasions and I know that they take seriously my views and, above all, the views of the Committee. I believe that they intend to carry forward a further process of reform. They have given an undertaking that they will report on that within five years as part of the process. That undertaking was also given, I think, to the Committee.
Mr. Raynsford:
I give way to my hon. Friend, who was also a member of the Committee.
Mr. Sawford:
My hon. Friend was in the Chamber when I said that the Committee felt constrained by the type of Bill that was before us. We felt that we were restricted in the sort of amendments that we could make to it. I drew attention to the special report, which clearly states that view.
I learned a great a deal when considering the Bill. I learned of wards where there were no electors and of wards where there have been no elections for 25 years.I learned also of a veto system that prevented democratically elected people taking their place on the court of common council.
At the outset of my consideration of the Bill I was reminded of a story about a chap who walked into a bank with a £18 note. When told that it was not legal currency and could not be accepted, the member of the bank's staff said, " We can change it for you. Do you want three £6 or two £9?" At the end of the Bill's--
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. Order. The hon. Gentleman must take his seat when I am on my feet. That intervention was far too long.
Mr. Raynsford:
My hon. Friend makes better than anyone else could the case for reform. The status quo is untenable and the Bill is moving us forward in the right direction. I accept entirely, as I have already made clear, that there is a need to take the reform process further.
The Committee asked for a number of amendments to be made to the Bill, covering a number of important issues raised by hon. Members on Second Reading. They include a test of "connection" with the City, which people nominated as corporate voters must satisfy; an inflation-proofing mechanism for the rateable value bands
and thresholds, to ensure that the size of the new business electorate does not increase just because property values rise; and a provision--
Mr. McDonnell:
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you advise us whether the Minister is speaking to the amendment, the Bill, or Third Reading? What is he speaking on?
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
If the Minister were not in order, I would have stopped him.
Mr. Raynsford:
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am slightly surprised that my hon. Friend, who spoke for two hours, questions whether I am in order.
The Committee proposed amendments to ensure that the size of the new business electorate does not increase just because property values rise, and a provision to ensure that, in appointing voters, companies have regard to the composition of the work force--a point which my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington recognised in his speech as a significant forward move. I believe that all those represent sensible improvements to the proposals for the new franchise.
The Committee stated in its special report that it does not feel that the measures in the Bill go far enough. I do not dissent from that view. We have welcomed the proposals, but have always regarded them as a first stage in the process of reform. There is clearly much more that the City could do to improve the accountability and transparency of the way in which it is governed, and to streamline its decision taking. The Committee's report provides a useful indication of the priorities for the next phase of reforms.
If this Bill is prevented from proceeding in its current form, the City franchise will remain unchanged, and the drive for reform from within the corporation will be stifled. I do not think that anyone who cares about reform wants that outcome. Significantly, the City of London Labour party--one of the two original objectors to the Bill--is now prepared to accept the proposals as a first stage in the process of reform, and has written to express that view to hon. Members, as we have heard from several hon. Members tonight.
By allowing the Bill to proceed, the House will be giving further encouragement--
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |