| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the Noes have it.
Mr. McDonnell: I beg to move amendment No. 66, in page 2, line 24, at end insert--
'''business electoral college'' means a body comprising voters appointed under section 3(1)(c) with responsibility for electing the business voters entitled to vote in ward elections.'.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 67, in page 2, line 24, at end insert--
'''employees' electoral college'' means a body comprising voters appointed under section 3(1)(d) with responsibility for electing the employees voters entitled to vote in ward elections.'.
No. 75, in clause 3, page 2, line 38, leave out from 'person' to 'ordinarily' and insert--
'elected from the business electoral college comprising voters appointed by the qualifying bodies which are'.
No. 71, in page 2, line 42, at end insert--
'(d) is a person elected from the employees' electoral college comprising voters who are employees of 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 as having a rateable value of not less than £200.'.
No. 76, in page 2, line 42, at end insert--
'(1A) the employees' electoral college shall reflect the range of occupations operating within the City of London, and shall comprise relevant occupational constituencies for which an employee must register based upon his/her principal occupation as defined under the DFEE Standard Occupational Classification Major Groups; and the proportion of voters to be elected from an occupational constituency shall be determined in proportion to the number of employees registering for a particular occupational constituency in relation to the total registrations.'.
No. 77, in page 2, line 42, at end insert--
'(1B) the business electoral college shall reflect the range of business activity within the city, and shall comprise relevant business operational constituencies for which a qualifying body must register based upon its principal business operation; and the proportion of voters to be elected from a business operational constituency will be determined in proportion to the number of qualifying bodies registering for a particular business operational constituency in relation to the total registrations.'.
No. 72, in page 2, line 42, at end insert--
'(1C) The number of business voters elected from the business electoral college shall be no more than 2000.'.
No. 73, in page 2, line 42, at end insert--
'(1D) The number of employee voters elected from the employees' electoral college shall be no more than 2000.'.
No. 78, in page 2, line 46, at end insert--
'(2A)--(1) For the election of voters to represent the business operational and occupational constituencies within the electoral colleges, each vote in the poll shall be a single transferable vote.
(2) A single transferable vote is a vote--
(a) capable of being given so as to indicate the voter's order of preference for the candidates for election as members for the constituency, and
(b) capable of being transferred to the next choice when the vote is not needed to give a prior choice the necessary quota of votes or when a prior choice is eliminated from the list of candidates because of a deficiency in the number of votes given for him.'.
No. 74, in page 3, line 22, at end insert--
'subject to subsections (1C) and (1D) above'.
Mr. McDonnell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I clarify the procedures by which we sought
to vote on the previous group of amendments? I gave an indication that I wished to move other amendments but they have not been called.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: We debate amendments in the groupings set down on the selection list, but we deal with them as we come to them in the amendment paper. We have dealt with amendment No. 3. We have not yet reached the group of amendments on which the hon. Gentleman would like to vote. We must now debate the next group of amendments that have been selected, and after that we will come to the amendment on which he wants to vote.
Mr. McDonnell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek clarification on why we did not vote on amendment No. 3, when there was a clear indication of support for it on the Floor of the House?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is a matter for the Chair to hear the voices and make a judgment on whether a Division is warranted. In my view, the voices did not warrant a Division.
Mr. McDonnell: May I express my disappointment, Mr. Deputy Speaker? I felt that there were sufficient voices to merit a vote.
Through the present group of amendments, we seek to establish a new democratic structure for the City. In an attempt to establish the stakeholder structure that we discussed earlier, we propose to establish electoral colleges.
In the Labour party in recent years, there has been some debate about electoral colleges. There was an electoral college for the selection of the Labour party's candidate for mayor of London. We have learned some lessons about the drawbacks of that procedure, and we have had the opportunity to consider both the dangers and the strengths of electoral colleges.
A balance is needed between the stakeholder components in the City. The amendments provide a definition of the various electoral colleges. Amendment No. 66 deals with the business college,
- a body comprising voters appointed under section 3(1)(c) with responsibility for electing the business voters entitled to vote in ward elections.
During previous stages of the Bill, there was discussion of amendments to introduce employees into the electoral process and to expand the role of residents in the franchise, and of attempts by me and others to undermine the business vote. Far from undermining the business vote, the amendments consolidate it within a structure which guarantees business a role in perpetuity in the City of London corporation.
Businesses could come together, discuss common concerns, promote individual manifestos and in due course elect voters who would nominate and vote for the City of London corporation. Although I have some concerns about the business vote continuing, this is one
way in which it can be contained constructively. Business could engage in discussion of its own interests and comment on matters that concern the residents--the environment, education, social services and policing--and matters that concern the voluntary sector and community organisations, as we discussed in the context of previous amendments. At the same time, business could form an electoral college with its own interests.The second electoral college that I propose is the electoral college for employees. That relates partly to the previous set of amendments, to which we shall return in due course. I am sure that we will be quick enough on our toes to ensure that there is a vote on those amendments.
Amendment No. 67 establishes the right of employees to have a say about the management of the environment of the City, the management of the City corporation, and the corporation's performance of its functions.
9.45 pm
- "employees' electoral college" means a body comprising voters appointed under section 3(1)(d)--
- with responsibility for electing the employees voters entitled to vote in ward elections.
I have tried to ensure that the amendments comprise a balance of interests in an electoral college, which provides a procedure whereby, first, the residential vote will continue--it will not be diminished or swamped, as was suggested in the previous debate. Secondly, the important role of employees as stakeholders will be acknowledged. Thirdly, the role of businesses will be recognised. I have not sought to amend the qualification for businesses. I tried to ensure that the qualifying business body is included early in the Bill.
Qualification requires an element of physical occupation. I am not happy about the definition of physical occupation. However, my amendment on that was not accepted. The definition of physical occupation will apply to businesses, which will be qualifying bodies. I am pleased that we have established to some extent that qualifying bodies will include voluntary organisations, Churches and religious bodies. They will be covered by the business electoral college. Perhaps amendment No. 66 requires a wider definition and a better term than "business electoral college". For example, "qualifying body electoral college" would cover a wider range of bodies.
The business colleges as comprised in the amendment would be based on a franchise that the Bill defines. An additional amendment would enable an employees' electoral college to be formed. The members of those electoral colleges would meet, discuss and hold hustings to secure the candidates who wished to stand as voters. Having listened to the arguments in the electoral colleges, the voters would be able to cast their votes for candidates for the corporation.
Amendment No. 75 would provide that a person entitled to vote at a ward election would be
- elected from the business college comprising voters appointed by the qualifying bodies . . .
Amendment No. 71 would add paragraph (d) to clause 3(1):
- a person elected from the employees' electoral college comprising voters who are employees of 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 as having a rateable value of not less than £200.
Amendment No. 71 would establish an electoral college of employees. How should we determine who those employees are and where and for whom they work? I reject the argument that it is impossible to identify, register and ballot those employees effectively. Why? The arguments put forward so far were used to undermine the demand for a residential vote and for universal adult suffrage. I cannot comprehend that registering company employees would present any logistical problem. I cannot repeat too often that the records for national insurance, taxation and health and safety regulation are such that it is almost impossible to argue that we cannot identify employees in a company and on a particular site.
I shall clarify the verification process. It has been argued that there could be no independent verification of those employees nor independent supervision of such ballots. With the greatest respect to the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), although he properly cited research on industrial ballots and associated problems, the history of industrial ballots during recent years nevertheless shows an almost superb improvement in their conduct. We have moved on to another plateau of industrial democracy. That ensures that the mechanical processes of industrial ballots can be completed so as to produce respectable, verifiable and acceptable results.
With the greatest respect to the right hon. Gentleman, the legal challenges to industrial ballots that have taken place were the result of legislation pursued by the previous Government, which was aimed at undermining any potential for industrial democracy and workers exercising their right to withdraw their labour. The arguments that an industrial ballot cannot be organised and that the registration of employees cannot be verified independently to ensure high standards of probity, correctness and electoral success are fallacious. For that reason, it is difficult to make such arguments against the introduction of an electoral college. Such an electoral college would give a voice to all those employees, who have been denied one by the refusal to accept the previous amendments. They are key stakeholders, whom we should involve in running the City administration.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |