| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Wareing: There is another group of people who perhaps deserve an amendment: the students, for example, at the London school of economics.
Dr. Godman: There is also the City university.
Mr. Wareing: Indeed, there is the City university, Goldsmith's college and various other higher and further education establishments.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us deal with the Bill as it is.
Mr. McDonnell: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is a way in which to acknowledge the role of students almost as though they were employees of a particular body within an organisation, but I shall not pursue that matter because I can see that you are not succumbing to that argument. I shall concentrate on the amendments in hand.
That set of amendments, which is linked to a further set that we may debate later or on another occasion--which establishes electoral colleges--seeks to establish a stakeholder concept within the City of London corporation.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. No doubt inadvertently, the hon. Gentleman has started to repeat himself. That I cannot allow.
Mr. McDonnell: At this stage, then, I simply need to say that the amendments allow for the formation of the right of workers within the City to have a say over their immediate environment. Why is that important? Because they should have a right to have a say over how their immediate environment is managed and governed. What does that mean? It is not industrial democracy within a firm; it is not about workers' rights; it is about the right of the estimated 250,000 workers who commute to the City to have a say and to make their contribution. It enables development of a discussion whereby those people can say what they require and how their needs can be met within the City area.
Before I conclude, may I briefly put the following point? Residents have their say over what they feel they need. Businesses have their say over what they feel they require within that limited environment to ensure that they function as businesses. What is not heard is the voice of employees who come into the area, telling us what they need to function as employees. I give a few simple examples.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has dwelt on that point to such an extent that I shall begin to think of invoking the Standing Order against him for repetition.
Mr. McDonnell: I understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I simply wanted to mention the example of nurseries, which would enhance the quality of employees' lives, and the need for out-of-hours schooling.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have ruled on repetition. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman need fear that any of those people will feel that their views have not been represented.
Mr. McDonnell: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
This group of amendments opens up a new agenda for the City corporation and asks new questions of all of us. It opens up a new horizon, giving us the opportunity to liberate the legislation, to make it truly democratic. I would not want such provision to be replicated elsewhere, because I understand the special argument about the City of London. I understand the special needs of businesses, employees and residents in the City, and how we have to combine those needs.
8.45 pm
Although I do not accept the Bill, if we are to compromise on it--that is what we are trying to do today--I urge hon. Members to accept this group of amendments. The amendments define physical presence, ensure that qualifying bodies are proper qualifying bodies and give a voice to employees.
Mr. Peter Brooke (Cities of London and Westminster): I once moved a group of 25 amendments, in Committee, in opposition on the Finance Act 1978, but I do not think that I have ever replied to a grouping of 20. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) on the stamina with which he spoke to the amendments, although I cannot necessarily agree with the content of his speech. I hope that he and the House will excuse me if I am rather briefer than he has been. Nevertheless, I shall concentrate on and cover his amendments. As the issues are complicated, however, I shall not hurry my objections to his amendments and to those that he shares with the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) in this group.
In replying to this group of amendments, I should like first to say a little about Labour Members' objections--on what might be described as grounds of general principle--to the Bill's reference to "qualifying bodies" before explaining the amendments' effect and why, consequently, I shall be inviting the House not to accept them.
As has been made clear in today's exchanges, many of the amendments in this group are prompted by objection in principle to the involvement of those representing businesses--qualifying bodies, in the terminology of this group of amendments--in the City's voting system in the way anticipated or, indeed, at all. The entitlement of individuals appointed by qualifying bodies to participate in City elections--which the amendments seek to alter--reflects, as the arrangements in the City have always reflected, the fact that the City is overwhelmingly a place for doing business rather than for living in.
Participation by business in City elections is not new, as all hon. Members will by now appreciate, but the voting system has been adapted over time to meet changing circumstances. The Bill continues that process. By way of illustration, in the 14th century, the qualification to vote in common council elections was solely a business one: voting entitlement was confined to members of the guilds. That arrangement was later expanded--[Interruption.]
Mr. McDonnell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Brooke: I shall give way in a moment. If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me--no doubt he had the same situation in his speech--it is easier if I reach the end of a sentence before someone interrupts me.
The arrangement was later expanded to enable electoral participation, partly by the City companies and partly by the wards. I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. McDonnell: The right hon. Gentleman is as courteous as ever. I urge him to recognise that, in those days, there was not the same distinction between those who had a company and those who did not. Those who lived and those who worked in the City were one--people worked in their area. I urge him--he has read as much of the literature as I have--to accept that.
Mr. Brooke: I understand the hon. Gentleman's intervention, but he will know--as I was saying a moment or two ago--that part of the objection to the process of this legislation and the City having a business vote has come back to the business vote, as such. However, I acknowledge what he has just said.
The principle of participation by both business and residential interests remains today, and it is reflected in the proposals that we are now considering and in which the concept of qualifying bodies is a key ingredient.
Much of what has been said on the amendments is informed by objection to the inconsistency between the electoral arrangements in the City and those elsewhere. That criticism overlooks the fact that, while local authorities are statutory bodies created since the 19th century, with boundaries determined in accordance with resident populations, the City's jurisdiction has always been based on its position as a centre of trade. As I have already said, its franchises have, over time, reflected that fact. I remark in passing that the City is the most notable centre in Europe for archaeological research, because there has been continuous commercial activity on the site for 2000 years.
The aim of the Bill is to ensure, through appointments made by qualifying bodies, that the range of interests in the modern City business community is properly represented. That aim is no novelty in the development of the City's local governance. It is axiomatic. An argument that local governance of the world's leading international financial centre--which, I remind Labour Members, includes the economic development brief--should be decided solely by 5,000 residents is surely misplaced.
The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington has contended that the Bill would result in City business being given a disproportionate influence in the workings of the Greater London Authority, given the duties on the authority to consult the City's common council, as a London local authority. That point lacks substance, because the Greater London Authority Act 1999, on whose Committee the hon. Gentleman and I both served for many hours, imposes obligations on the authority to consult London local authorities and business interests in the capital. It provides that the business voice is to be heard, regardless of whether it is channelled through a local authority.
The notion that the City is a threat to the workings of the Greater London Authority does not seem to be shared by the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), now the mayor of London. His mayoral manifesto, "Ken for London" said, in its business section, "London: Business Capital of Europe", that he will
- work with the Corporation of the City of London and major City institutions to ensure London remains the financial capital of Europe.
Amendment No. 3 would remove reference to directors, officers, employees, agents and holders of paid or unpaid offices from the definition of occupation in clause 2. That would define occupation as "personal physical presence" on premises, but without referring to the classes of people who might be included. It is a paving amendment for others in the group, to which I shall speak later. The result would not change the requirement for occupation, but it would create ambiguity as to which people were intended to be covered by the definition.
Amendment No. 5, to which the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington has also appended his name, would remove clause 2(2). In consequence, unincorporated bodies, whose property must, as a matter of law, be held by individuals, would be taken out of entitlement if the individuals who acted as trustees or custodians of the property were not based on the premises. The main casualties of the amendment would be charitable and voluntary sector bodies, which are often unincorporated. Their property is frequently held through the permanent officers based in national or regional offices, with local premises used by voluntary staff or place workers.
Clause 2(2) was included in the Bill because it seemed to the promoters undesirable that such people should be excluded from participation in elections simply as the result of a legal technicality.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |