---

Mr. McDonnell: The amendments partly relate to that. Amendments were tabled that sought to bring Hampstead heath and Epping forest into the geographical area of the City of London, which would enable residents in those areas to vote. Those amendments were not selected for debate.

However, it can be argued that employees of the City corporation who are based outside the corporation, but work in such fields of activity, are located primarily in the City and could participate as employees under the amendments. If nothing else, we should at least agree, in a final vote, that the definition of bodies that qualify, as businesses do, for a vote in the City should include churches, religious organisations, voluntary organisations and community organisations.

It can be argued that the wording already allows for that. However, that is open to doubt and we must clarify the matter in the Bill. We should also vote on whether trade unions located in the City of London--in the sense

15 May 2000 : Column 84

that they are operational there and represent members' interests there--should be recognised as a qualifying body, thus enabling them to elect someone who would vote on the composition of the City corporation.

Mr. John Cryer (Hornchurch): My hon. Friend may not be aware that, before I came to this place, I was a journalist working on the daily paper Lloyd's List, as well as various left-wing publications such as Tribune, which my colleagues on the Front Bench know and love. Under the amendments, would the chapel of the National Union of Journalists have the right to elect voters?

Mr. McDonnell: There are two issues involved in that question, which is why I would like the details to be included in the Bill. First, does the organisation have a financial property base in the City of up to £200 rateable value? Secondly, is it a qualifying body as an incorporated or unincorporated body? The question is whether either of those factors is applicable.

In our discussion of the amendments, I want to demonstrate that the references to corporate and unincorporated bodies in the Bill are, in legal terms, almost gobbledegook. To give security to those organisations, we should name them in the Bill. As I said, one of my arguments concerns stakeholding. Bodies such as churches, trade unions and others contribute to the life of the City of London and to the quality of that life, so I believe that they should be entitled to vote.

With the approval of the House, I shall seek four separate votes on qualifying bodies. I accept that that is difficult, but we are dealing with a sliding scale of amendments which could improve the Bill. We should at least seek to include in the Bill an acceptance that churches and others would be recognised as qualifying bodies. I would welcome your advice on those votes and their time scale, Mr, Deputy Speaker.

I shall explain the meaning of the linked amendments Nos. 3, 65, 5 and 48. There should have been a further consequential amendment, which would have deleted clause 3(1)(c). Unfortunately, however, it was not tabled. Let me offer apologies on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead, who tabled several of the amendments and is on parliamentary duties in Washington.

Mr. Pound: In Tyne and Wear?

Mr. McDonnell: In the United States.

I have added my name to several amendments tabled by my hon. Friend.

The Labour party's manifesto sets out the background to the amendments. We are seeking to abide by the commitments that we gave to the electorate during the election. We have sought to establish good local government, enabling people to have the powers within their area which they felt that they needed to improve their quality of life. The manifesto states that local government should work in partnership with local people, local business and local voluntary organisations. We argued that councils would have the powers necessary to develop partnerships and bring about greater accountability. We also said that we would try to introduce a general power of improvement for certain areas. The amendments seek to do that.

15 May 2000 : Column 85

Our party leader's argument at a certain conference about the forces of conservatism was an argument in favour of democratic engagement. The House has established, within its Public Administration Committee, a Committee to examine innovations in citizen participation. Our amendments seek to ensure that we engage the citizens of the City of London corporation in their own government and management.

In the past, we have defined citizens, especially in relation to local government, as people living in a defined geographical area. However, there are exceptions, and overseas voters are included. The previous Government included passport holders as voters, but a local connection--even one from 20 years ago--qualified them for that. I believe that the present Government are reducing that period.

There are also proxy and postal votes to cover temporary absences, such as holidays and working away. However, despite further innovations to enhance democratic participation, it is still based on identifiable location. Hence the reforms that we introduced to increase opportunities to register, such as a rolling register right up to the weeks just before an election. That is unlike the previous system of registering, which was based on a date in the October prior to the election. However, even the rolling register is still based on physical presence, and depends on location in a constituency in a parliamentary election, or in a ward in a local government election. Even with proportional representation in the recent London mayoral elections, qualification was still based on living in an area, being located within a boundary--a geographical area of greater London defined by the Greater London Authority's area of responsibility.

Why is that so? It is because we have defined democracy as people who have a common interest--almost a physical interest in the area that they share--coming together in their shared life experiences. Democratic participation and votes cast should be based on the knowledge of that area.

7.30 pm

A voter in physical occupation is defined in clause 3(1) as an owner, tenant or resident, but, for the qualifying body, the Bill goes further. Clause 2 states that the qualifying body can be established in relation to occupation by

a director, officer, employee or agent of that body

and, in lines 14 to 16 on page 2, goes even further by adding

through a holder of any paid or unpaid office.

A person can be appointed as a voter under clause 3(1)(c) by a qualifying body solely because the organisation can have an agent present in that hereditament.

What does "presence" mean? How long will a person have to be present? Would it be solely on the day or night of the qualifying date--1 September of the previous year? If it is based solely on the presence of a paid agent or an office holder on 1 September, businesses will be able to vote if such a person physically occupies the premises for one day only.

We accept that clause 5 sets out that the voter's principal place of work must be in the City and that the voter must have worked for a qualifying body for 12 months previously, or, under the alternative conditions,

15 May 2000 : Column 86

that the voter's principal place of work must have been in the City for an aggregate period of five, or even 10 years. However, the business connection will have to be for only one day on particular premises.

The Bill's promoters have set out their views on what they consider to be its benefits. They say:

The entitlement extends to a qualifying body only if it actually occupies premises in the City for the purposes of carrying out a trade, business, profession or other occupation or calling, while the performance of the functions of any paid or unpaid office being functions for whose performance accommodation has been provided by the qualifying body.

That is a somewhat disingenuous allegation of physical presence. The qualifying body may acquire the rights of physical presence by a director's presence--not that of an employee or a major shareholder. So, the requirement that voters should have a connection with the City in order to gain a right to vote, as stated by the promoters, can be met by a qualifying body with a director--a tenuous connection.

There is an extraordinary circular logic to the promoters' argument. They argue that the qualifying body qualifies because of physical presence, but physical presence can be gained only by a director who is a member of the board of directors. Under clause 5(5), a director can be a person treated as having his principal workplace in the City, and therefore eligible to be a voter. Clause 5(5) states:

A person who on the qualifying date is a member of a board of directors or other governing body of a qualifying body shall, for the purposes of this section, be treated as having his principal or only place of work on that date, and for the period during which he has been a member of that board or governing body, at the hereditament (or part) in respect of which the entitlement to appoint by that qualifying body arises.

Mr. Bermingham: Would not one be faced with the absolutely ridiculous situation in which somebody who does not own shares in but is a director of Amusement Ltd., running a theme park in north Yorkshire but registering it in London, could become a qualifying voter in the City of London if so appointed?

Mr. McDonnell: There is a strong anxiety--let us put it no stronger than that--that the system will be open to abuse. The Bill is not only almost incomprehensible but unenforceable.

---