| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Baker: Given the Minister's strong commitment to public morality, on which he has based this Bill, can he explain why the Government are not introducing a Bill to ban fox hunting?
Mr. Morley: That is a matter for my hon. Friends at the Home Office. The Government have, however, already given a commitment to investigate the matter, and the Prime Minister has given a commitment that hon. Members have a free vote. The question is how we take the issue forward, but that is a matter for the Home Office.
Mr. Steinberg: The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) compared the pretentious wearing of fur coats to the wearing of Armani suits by Labour party poseurs. Can the Minister tell us how many Armanis it takes to make a suit, and how they are killed?
Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend makes a good point, although I have never heard of an Armani being skinned to make a suit.
We have heard a lot about morality, but where is the morality in Conservative Members arguing that the Government cannot introduce a Bill such as this because it would offend some people in other countries? Where is the morality in arguing that we cannot introduce a Bill because some people with a vested interest might take the Government to court? Where is the morality in treating animals in a way that simply is not needed in
modern society? Those are not the standards that people expect in the 21st century. The Bill is long overdue, it commands popular support and I commend it to the House.Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).
FUR FARMING (PROHIBITION) BILL [MONEY]
Queen's recommendation having been signified--
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52,
- That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown in consequence of any compensation scheme made under the Act.--[Mr. Touhig.]
6.58 pm
Sitting suspended until Seven o'clock, there being private business set down by The Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 20 (Time for taking private business).
City of London (Ward Elections) Bill (By Order)
As amended, further considered.
7 pm
Mr. John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I gave notice of my point of order earlier today. It relates back to previous points of order that I raised about the Bill's compliance with the Human Rights Act 1998. On 24 January, I said that we should be advised of the compliance of private Bills with the Act, section 19 of which states that when the Government introduce a Bill, the Minister responsible must state on the Bill its compliance with the Act. Madam Speaker made it clear that that did not apply to private Bills.
During that debate, I asked how Members of the House could be advised on that legal matter of compliance with the Act and thus with the European convention on human rights. In an intervention, the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke)--one of the Bill's sponsors--argued that the sponsors had sought legal advice and were satisfied that the measure complied with the Act and with the ECHR. However, they have not published that legal opinion, so--
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving the Chair notice of his point of order. I am well aware of the point he makes. However, he too will be aware that the matter has already been well aired and that it is not one on which the Chair can rule this evening. We should now deal with the amendments that he has tabled.
Mr. McDonnell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is not much to add to that point of order.
Mr. McDonnell: I should like to clarify one point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During that previous debate, it was asserted that the non-intervention of the Attorney-General on the matter was evidence of the compliance of the measure with the Human Rights Act. I want to clarify that non-intervention--
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now starting to do what I said that we could not do this evening. Those are matters for the debate, not for a ruling from the Chair. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would deal with his amendments.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have dealt with the point of order. I want to move on to amendment No. 3.
Clause 2
Mr. McDonnell: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 10, leave out from 'there' to end of line 19.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 64, in page 2, line 12, leave out from 'director' to end of line 13 and insert 'or employee'.
No. 65, in page 2, leave out lines 14 to 16.
No. 79, in page 2, line 19, after '1890' insert--
'or a church, religious body, voluntary sector or community organisation which has registered as a charity under the Charities Act 1993'.
No. 80, in page 2, line 19, after '1890' insert--
'or trade union certificated under section one of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992'.
No. 26, in page 2, line 19, at end insert--
'''relevant employee'' means a person whose principal or only place of work on the qualifying date is ordinarily the hereditament in respect of which the entitlement to appoint a voter arises and who works for that qualifying body.'
No. 5, in page 2, leave out lines 25 to 28.
No. 34, in clause 3, page 2, line 42, after '£200' insert--
'and which has conducted a ballot of its relevant employees to determine the person to be appointed as a voter.'.
No. 37, in page 3, line 12, leave out from 'greater' to end of line and insert--
'number of employees of the qualifying body.'.
No. 16, in page 3, line 13, leave out from the beginning to 'the' in line 14 and insert--
'A qualifying body shall appoint as voters pursuant to subsection (1)(c) above'.
No. 17, in page 3, leave out lines 18 to 22.
No. 38, in page 3, line 20, after 'values', insert--
'the number of relevant employees.'
No. 40, in clause 4, page 3, line 28, leave out from 'shall' to end of line 30 and insert--
'conduct a ballot of all relevant employees to elect its voter or voters.'.
No. 48, in clause 5, page 4, line 17, leave out subsection (5).
No. 51, in clause 8, page 5, line 4, leave out 'appoint' and insert 'elect'.
No. 52, in page 5, line 7, leave out 'appointed' and insert 'elected'.
No. 25, in page 6, leave out schedule 1.
No. 53, in schedule 1, page 6, line 2, leave out 'appoint' and insert 'elect'.
No. 54, in page 6, line 7, leave out from 'scale:' to end of line 24 and insert--
| Up to 1,000, | 1 |
| For every 1,000 over the first 1,000 | 1 for every thousand relevant employees |
No. 56, in page 6, line 28, leave out 'rateable value' and insert 'number of relevant employees'.
Mr. McDonnell: Although the matter of human rights is one for debate, it cannot be debated under any of the amendments, so I simply point out, Mr. Deputy Speaker--
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That matter has been debated. If the hon. Gentleman does not intend to address his remarks directly to the amendments, I shall have to call him strictly to order.
Mr. McDonnell: I shall move on to the amendments, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We return to this debate with some
amazement. Our argument thus far has been that the Bill is thoroughly undemocratic. The amendments have been tabled in an attempt to introduce some form of democratic legitimacy to the measure.Although we are debating one group of amendments, it covers several separate principles, so I shall seek your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to divide the House on more than one amendment in the group. The amendments have been grouped under the heading "Qualifying Bodies", but the individual amendments have different purposes, so I believe that we should have separate votes. The main thrust of all the amendments is to democratise the Bill. Although they are grouped, I shall seek leave later to divide the House on at least three sub-groups, and I shall now set out the arguments for that.
The amendments would ameliorate the Bill. In the previous debate, we urged compliance with some of the basic, democratic procedures of local government. The amendments would designate who can qualify to vote for a voter--who will be qualified to nominate a voter at future elections for the City of London.
Clause 3 currently proposes three groups. The first consists of people who are
- in occupation . . . as owner or tenant.
The second group refers to residents--as in any other local government or national election. We have just gone through a whole process of devolution; residence was a qualification in each measure that was introduced--for Wales, Scotland and Ireland.
However, through the amendments, we need to strike at the third category of residents, defined in subsection (c) as
- a person appointed as a voter in writing by a qualifying body which is ordinarily in occupation for relevant purposes as owner or tenant of the whole or part of a hereditament situated in that ward which is shown in the local non-domestic rating list.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |