City of London (Ward Elections) Bill
House of Commons, 15 April 2002.
John McDonnell (Labour, Hayes and Harlington)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)
Order. If the hon. Gentleman will indulge me, perhaps I might make a point of order myself, which I hope may be of assistance to the House. It may be for the convenience of right hon. and hon. Members if I remind them that, just before proceedings were adjourned on the last occasion, the promoters' new clause 1 was read a second time. The amendments to the new group were grouped with it, so they cannot be further debated at this stage, but I am prepared to allow a Division on amendment (a), which stands in the name of Mr. John McDonnell, if he wishes to press it to a vote.
After the questions on new clause 1 have been disposed of, including the Question that the clause be added to the Bill, we will come to the debate headed by new clause 3, on the European convention on human rights. The promoters' other amendments in the group headed by new clause 1, which I call to be moved, will be moved formally as and when we reach them in going through the amendment paper. Unless the hon. Gentleman's point of order relates to the matters immediately before the House—the business remaining from the previous time that the House sat—I would prefer to take it after we have decided on those matters.
John McDonnell (Labour, Hayes and Harlington)
My point of order relates to this evening's business of the House and this evening's process.
Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)
With the indulgence of the House, I shall therefore take that point of order after I have disposed of those other matters, which follow on from the previous time that the House sat. That is the logical way in which to proceed. Do you wish to press amendment (a) to a vote, Mr. McDonnell?
John McDonnell (Labour, Hayes and Harlington)
Yes.
New Clause 1 — Exclusion of Crown Property
John McDonnell (Labour, Hayes and Harlington)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On today's agenda, a motion from the Prime Minister has been allowed that the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill may proceed to any hour. I thought that, except in the severest need, the House had decided against all-night sittings as part of its modernisation programme. It is also clear from the agenda that we are not even able to debate the Prime Minister's proposal to force the Bill through tonight.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, will you confirm that, or investigate whether the motion has been placed on the agenda at the direct request of the City corporation, because I have evidence to prove that it has? On repeated occasions we have been informed that this is a private Bill and not a Government Bill, yet the Prime Minister's name is now associated with it. What status does the Bill have? Has the Prime Minister made any declarations of interest in relation to the Bill?
Mr. Deputy Speaker, will you confirm that I have raised my concerns with the Speaker about the procedures associated with the Bill, including the fact that I have been offered inducements to drop my opposition to it? Can you also confirm the last occasion on which this procedure was used? I believe that it was 1987. Will you reconsider the procedure for private Bills, to prevent this abuse of the House by the Prime Minister? The Prime Minister is taking away one of the last few mechanisms by which a Back Bencher can exert influence on a promoter of a Bill—that is, to delay the legislation to ensure that amendments are considered seriously.
Even if we were to go through the night, none of us is willing to put at risk tomorrow's business, which is a debate on the middle east and one of the most important issues facing the world today. I give you notice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I advise Labour Members to withdraw from the debate, because I believe that the process has been corrupted and tainted by the Prime Minister's intervention. A number of Bills have been allowed through the House—this one in particular—when votes have been sold to business friends who have donated to both parties. It is a corruption of the worst kind to debase Parliament in that way.
Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)
I am sure that the hon. Member realises that the Chair cannot possibly comment on certain matters. The reasons why a business motion appears on the Order Paper cannot be questioned by the Chair: it is there, and that is the fact we are dealing with. It is certainly not without precedent for a business motion to be employed in the course of private legislation.
As for the House considering its methods of dealing with private business, it is always open to the House to take an initiative to examine procedures, just as is happening over public business on the initiative of the Modernisation Committee. I do not think that I can substantially add to what the hon. Gentleman has said.
John McDonnell (Labour, Hayes and Harlington)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I press you on the point that we investigate the communications that have taken place between the City corporation and the Prime Minister on this matter, in relation to what representations have been made with the effect that he has placed this motion on the agenda tonight, any financial links with the corporation of London, any businesses that will gain votes as a result of this legislation, if it goes through, and any links with both the main political parties as a result?
Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)
The nature of the hon. Gentleman's complaint is such that, if he has evidence to substantiate it or believes that the matter needs to be investigated, it would be more a matter for the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. I repeat to the hon. Gentleman that the Chair cannot question why a particular motion is on the Order Paper. The Chair must deal with the business that it finds on the Order Paper for the day.
John McDonnell (Labour, Hayes and Harlington)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can I therefore have a response in due course to my point that the Bill should now become a Government Bill because the motion is in the name of the Prime Minister? In a series of debates in the House, we have been informed that this is a private Bill that has no association with the Government and no Minister in charge, yet the Prime Minister has put his name to the motion to secure the Bill tonight. Can we have a response from the Prime Minister today, if he can be brought to the House, to explain his motivation for putting his name to the motion; or can we consider the procedure whereby we no longer define as private business that with which Ministers are closely associated?
Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)
The status of the Bill is unchanged by the appearance on the Order Paper of that business motion. There have been occasions in the past when a private Bill has ceased its passage and has reappeared as a Government Bill, but that does not apply in this case.
John McDonnell (Labour, Hayes and Harlington)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can we therefore clarify and investigate the relationship between the City corporation and No. 10, particularly in respect of communications with regard to this Bill and related matters, such as the funding of the dome by the City corporation or the substantial investment by the City corporation in terms of the wining and dining of successive Ministers and of Opposition spokesmen and Back Benchers? Can we investigate that relationship to establish whether the Bill has been tainted by unfair inducements?
Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)
Whether we can we do so is a matter that the hon. Gentleman must be advised to pursue with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.
Kelvin Hopkins (Labour, Luton North)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is a new experience for me and perhaps for many other hon. Members who may have been here as long as I have—five years. This is obviously a Bill that now has Government backing. Would it not have been in order, when it became clear that the Government backed what is essentially a private Bill, for the Speaker to advise the Government to come clean at an early stage and make it Government business, which would have saved the House and many hon. Members like me a great deal of time spent debating the Bill in this Chamber, in the belief that it was genuinely a private Bill, and in debating fundamental issues of democracy?
Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)
The Speaker has no such role in proceedings of this kind. It is not without precedent that a business motion has been put on the Order Paper to deal with private legislation.
Robert Wareing (Labour, Liverpool, West Derby)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) has made several allegations of inducements having been made, if that were true—I hesitate to say that any hon. Member is dishonourable, but nevertheless the suspicion exists that if there have been inducements, hon. Members may be influenced—would it not be right, until investigations have taken place, for us to adjourn on this Bill?
Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will maintain his hesitation before making such a suggestion about right hon. and hon. Members. There is now a clear procedure, as we have a Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, as to where any hon. Member who has cause to believe that anything improper has taken place should direct such a complaint.
John McDonnell (Labour, Hayes and Harlington)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I repeat the point that I made earlier. I shall withdraw from this debate because I have been offered inducements. I believe that the process has been corrupted as a result of the Prime Minister's intervention today to ensure that this Bill goes through. It is meant to be private business, not Government business, but the Prime Minister has personally intervened to undermine any prospect of the Back Bencher exerting influence, when it should be the Back Bencher's right to exert influence on private business. This process is tainted and corrupted.
Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)
There is nothing that I can add to the hon. Gentleman's statement.
Andrew MacKinlay (Labour, Thurrock)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to place on record my sincere view that this is a very bad day for Parliament. It makes a charade of our law-making process and it is disgraceful that the Government machine and the Minister can sit here and railroad through legislation that, in an ordinary, free debating environment, would not get on the statute book. This Bill extends the property franchise, which, almost without fail, Labour Members have opposed on other occasions when they have been on the hustings seeking election to this place.
Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)
That was not a point of order; it was a statement.
Mike Hancock (Liberal Democrat, Portsmouth South)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you advise me and right hon. and hon. Members who are present whether there is a procedure that we can adopt that would stop this debate proceeding tonight and allow some of the serious allegations that have been made to be properly investigated? Failure to do that will taint whatever happens at the outcome of this debate. Does a procedure exist that will allow us to stop what we are doing at this moment and return to it when the issues that have been raised have been properly investigated by the relevant authorities?
Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)
I do not believe that what has been said amounts to a good cause for discontinuing proceedings on this Bill this evening.
Dennis Skinner (Labour, Bolsover)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think I heard you say at one point that there were precedents for the way in which this procedure was being dealt with tonight. That is true because it was used several times in the course of the 18 years that the Tories were in power. What saddens me is that, previously, when private business was extended during the night, including the Eastbourne Harbour Bill and all the rest, it was not about property rights or democracy. There were also several imported coal harbour Bills, which we managed to hold up for several years. Although they were important and were debated through the night, the truth is that they were not of the same dimension as this Bill, which we have debated not just tonight but for three years since it was first introduced.
This Bill is about people's voting rights and about extending power to corporations. It is close to the hearts of those of us who have fought for democratic rights over the years. There should therefore be no comparison with those ports Bills—which we opposed throughout the night—as bad as they were, and with the Eastbourne Harbour Bill, which was a disgrace, and for which Mrs. Thatcher stayed up all night and kept the Tories here as well. I can go through the gamut of things that occurred at that time, but this Bill is about the rights of people to vote or not to vote, which is a disgrace. This Bill should have remained a private Bill and should not have had extended to it the powers of the Government. That is why this is an extremely sad day.
Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)
The House will have heard what the hon. Gentleman says. We must now proceed.
Clause 2 — Interpretation
Clause 3 — Qualification of voters at ward elections
Clause 4 — Allocation of appointments
Clause 5 — Requirements as to connection of persons appointed with the city
Clause 6 — Exclusion of Crown property
Clause 8 — Ward lists: qualifying bodies
Schedule 1 — Rights to appoint voters
Schedule 3 — Repeals
George Young (Conservative, North West Hampshire)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
It is often said that the House does not discharge its task of scrutinising legislation adequately. However, this Bill has been debated for more than 25 hours and over a period of three and a half years. In the course of those debates, it could be said that more or less every permutation and combination of circumstances that might disclose grounds for objection to the Bill have been articulated. I do not propose to detain the House by trawling through the issues, but I want to touch on one or two that have been raised from time to time.
The fact that the City wards that are primarily resident in nature will remain so has been stated many times. The point has been made, however, by Labour Members that the increased business element will alter the nature of the common council even though the residents' role in terms of their voting strength will be preserved. The proposals in the Bill have been promoted in the light of a falling entitlement of business to participate as businesses have been incorporated. The proposals are designed to restore the equilibrium, not to change it.
The promoters have made substantive changes to the Bill. The replacement of the entitlement to appoint on the basis of rateable values by one based on work force size is particularly noteworthy. Although the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) does not care to acknowledge it, the move is consistent with views that he has expressed. The City of London Labour party has been more straightforward in its response. In reacting to the change, its chairman, whom the hon. Gentleman chose not to quote, described the proposals in a press release as "radical".
One issue that preoccupied the promoters in developing the Bill was the possibility of an electoral qualification for City electors that could be conferred directly on people working in City businesses rather than having a nomination system. A commuter vote of 300,000 or more would, however, completely swamp the existing resident vote and would be unacceptable, not least to residents. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) may wish to say a word or two about the interests of residents.
Any selection of the type of commuter given the vote to bring down the electorate from 300,000 to preserve a reasonable relationship with the existing resident vote would be arbitrary and highly discriminatory. It certainly would not be representative of the composition of work forces, a specific requirement of the present Bill.
I wish to thank all those on both sides of the House who have supported the Bill during its three-and-a-half-year passage through the House. I hope that the end of that process is in sight. I will not detain the House further. I commend the Bill to the House.
Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), I shall not detain the House for long. However, it is only fair that I say a few words.
As promised last November when the Bill was discussed in the House, I have carried out an extensive survey of City of London residents and asked for the views of most of them about issues relating to law and order and to drugs. It is interesting that more than two thirds of the respondents were entirely silent on City of London corporation affairs. Their priorities were obviously elsewhere, and I am sorry that it has been such a tortuous effort over the past four years to get the Bill through. Many respondents wrote positively about the corporation and it is only right that I should point that out. Some residents, of course, had concerns about what they perceived to be the anti-democratic elements of the election process, but they were only a small minority.
I want to take this opportunity to remind the House and, particularly, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who unfortunately is not in his seat, that in the four main wards, councillors are elected by a resident majority. If the residents in the wards around the Barbican and Golden lane considered themselves under threat from the reforms that have been proposed, their concerns would have been felt by the sitting members of the common council who represent those residential wards.
We might also reflect on the fact that four of the 27 sitting members in the corporation of the City of London and representing those residential wards are, in fact, non-resident business people themselves. Eight residents represent business wards. That hardly discloses the concerns between the interests of residential and business voters on the common council that have been emphasised in the criticisms that have been made in the past. The relentless pursuit of objections to the Bill does not reflect a groundswell of opinion of the City residents whom I represent in this place.
Those objections certainly do not represent the views of business. Those who have criticised the Bill tonight and over the past four years have objected to the continued existence of the City as a separate administrative area. In that connection, it is worth repeating the comments that the chairman of the City of London Labour party made on the record before the Select Committee in 1999. He said:
"The majority of these citizens who reside in the City do not want the City of London abolished. They do not want it attached to another constituency. I think it is fairly clear that they do not want that."
For the benefit of hon. Members, I should also like to say something about progress on the other reforms that the City is pursuing alongside those anticipated by the Bill. Mindful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of your earlier comments to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, I will seek to remain in order by being extremely brief.
The promoter has undertaken considerable work in the review of its ward boundaries. A review panel was established, comprising the recorder and the common serjeant—the two most senior judges at the Old Bailey—and the City's town clerk following advice from the local government boundary commission. Following public notices and a public consultation exercise, the review of the internal boundaries of the first two wards—Aldersgate and Cripplegate—is now almost complete.
A summary of the final recommendations was published as recently as March this year and sent to all voters, resident and non-resident, who would be affected by the changes. A more detailed report was also sent to all members of the common council and all those who had made representations to the town clerk at previous stages of the review. The final recommendations are currently out to consultation, and it is anticipated that they and any further representations will be submitted to the court of common council before the summer.
In addition, a City residents' liaison unit has been established as part of the package to reinforce the existing liaison arrangements between corporation departments and the City's residents. Other measures coupled with that include the introduction of regular consultation meetings, attended by the town clerk and other senior members and officers, and guaranteed resident representation on the corporation's non-ward committees. For example, four seats on the policy and resources committee are now reserved for such resident members.
A further undertaking given by the promoter was that the number of members of the City corporation would be reduced to 100 by the time the new arrangements came into operation. I can report that the number of members has been already been reduced by 18 to 112, and that process continues.
As a result, the Bill represents the right way forward for the City of London and the resident population is entirely happy. It seems ironic that some of the great largesse of the City corporation often goes to the areas such as Hampstead heath, Highgate woods and Queen's park. Enormous sums are spent on those most wonderful open spaces in central London, and the City corporation puts an enormous amount of time and money into its London gateway with the east of London representation. I do not wish to detain the House any further, other than to say that I hope that hon. Members will join me in voting for the Bill on Third Reading.
Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)
I, too, do not intend to detain the House, but it is right that there should be a brief comment from the Government before the completion of Third Reading.
The Bill has been considered in great detail for some three and a half years, as the right hon. Member for North–West Hampshire (Sir George Young), who is its sponsor, has clearly said. There have been protracted discussions in Committee and debates in the Chamber on several occasions. All the points of principle that relate to the Bill have been exhaustively considered, and the House has certainly done justice to its scrutiny function.
The Bill represents a measure of reform to the constitutional arrangements in the City. The Government have welcomed the fact that the City has promoted legislation to face up to the need to put its governance on a more modern footing. We believe that the Bill represents a step in the right direction and that it will make the governance of the City more modern and more in touch with life in the City today. However, the City is doing, and must do, other things to take forward its reform agenda, some of which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field). I hope that the City will wish to pursue that reform agenda.
The City corporation is a unique institution. That reflects the fact that it covers a business district with a relatively small number of residents, so it is not possible for the City to copy the electoral system that applies elsewhere in London and the country. The principle of business representation is uniquely appropriate to the City, but it must be reformed.
The current system allows only sole traders and partners of City-based businesses to vote. The incorporated companies that play an increasing part in the life of the City have no equivalent right. Other anomalies, such as the possibility to vote twice under current arrangements, will be ended by the Bill. If the Bill were not to proceed, those undesirable practices would be perpetuated. Quite simply, the choice is between reforming the City corporation and maintaining the status quo. In that context, the Government have no doubt whatever that it is right to support reform by supporting the Bill.
The remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) in his numerous points of order at the beginning of these debates are deeply regrettable. He made a series of wholly unfounded and false allegations, imputing motives to the Prime Minister and the Government for which there is no basis whatever and which I unequivocally rebut. The Government's concern is simply to assist the passage of a private Bill, which represents a modest measure of reform that most sensible people recognise as a step in the right direction. The Bill will not necessarily provide a long-term solution because of the further measures to which I have referred, but it is a step in the right direction and it is right that the House should agree to its Third Reading tonight.