INTERPRETATION (Hansard, 11 January 2001)

§ Mr. McDonnell
I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 1, line 18, 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.'.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 8, in page 1, line 18, 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. 19, in clause 3, page 2, line 33, leave out from 'person' to second 'a' and insert— 'elected from the business electoral college comprising voters appointed by'. No. 56, in clause 3, page 2, line 33, leave out from 'person' to 'ordinarily' in line 34 and insert— 'elected from the business electoral college comprising voters appointed by the qualifying bodies which are'. No. 22, in clause 3, page 2, line 37, 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. 58, in clause 3, page 2, line 37, at end insert— '(1A) 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. 57, in clause 3, page 2, line 37, at end insert— '(1B) 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. 23, in clause 3, page 2, line 37, at end insert— '(1C) The number of business voters elected from the business electoral college shall be no more than 2,000.'. 1325 No. 24, in clause 3, page 2, line 37, at end insert— '(1D) The number of employee voters elected from the employees' electoral college shall be no more than 2,000.'. No. 59, in clause 3, page 2, line 41, 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 to 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. 29, in clause 3, page 3, line 18, at end insert 'subject to subsections (1C) and (1D) above'.

§ Mr. McDonnell
The amendments are complex. Bearing in mind the evidence of the fallibility of hon. Members this evening, perhaps we should investigate the amendments in detail, so that the House will understand and be able to follow the debate.
Amendment No. 7 is a proposal to introduce a business electoral college.

§ Mr. Skinner
A what?

§ Mr. McDonnell
A business electoral college. I accept that the proposals offend some hon. Members. I shall come on to the justification for them in due course. At this stage, I simply want to put the detail on the record and explain it to hon. Members. If they have difficulty calculating to 100, they will have more difficulty understanding the complexities of my proposals.

§ Mr. Corbyn
Does my hon. Friend propose to describe the amendments one by one in order, or will he go through them all generally and then go back through them in detail? Several Members want to hear about them in detail, especially the first one. Will my hon. Friend deal with the others first, or come back to amendment No. 7?

§ Mr. McDonnell
As semantic issues are at stake, I should like to go through the amendments in order initially, return to the explanation of their import, and go on to the justification for them. If my hon. Friend is happy with that approach, I shall proceed, but if he can suggest an alternative one, I shall proceed with that.

§ Mr. Dismore
That approach is a little confusing. When my hon. Friend introduced the amendments, he said that he would talk about a business electoral college. I thought that the group of amendments would create an electoral college from a series of different functions. Would it not be better for my hon. Friend first to describe in principle what an electoral college is about before talking about the mechanics of which bits go where?

§ Mr. McDonnell
Okay, we shall start with that approach, if my hon. Friend is happy with that, and then return to the detail of how the legislation is affected.

§ Mr. Corbyn
Perhaps it would be better if my hon. Friend explained all the amendments, as there is clearly a jigsaw that has to be put together.

§ Mr. McDonnell
I am tempted to put the matter of the approach to the vote. However, given that we probably would not add up the votes correctly, I suggest that we proceed with the approach that I originally proposed.
1326 Amendment No. 7 introduces a proposal for a business electoral college, comprising voters appointed with responsibility for electing voters who will represent the business community in the City of London Corporation.

§ Mr. Skinner
I know that my hon. Friend has been meeting the promoters and that he is strong-willed on the issue, but is he telling me that the business college will be based on the model of so many trade unions? Will there be a bloc vote? Is that where we are going? That is the only sort of college vote that I am acquainted with. The business of fitting in with demands sounds a bit dodgy to me. I hope that my hon. Friend will not disappoint me, or will at least make me feel a bit better about the matter. He has not been meeting the promoters too often, has he?

§ Mr. McDonnell
I assure my hon. Friend that I have had one meeting with the City of London Corporation, at which an offer of an amendment was made. I subsequently declined that offer—or, rather, did not respond to it.

§ Mr. Dismore
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) talked about the particular electoral college of which he is aware. However, the one that we have all seen most recently is in the United States, and it has produced an appalling travesty of democracy. I hope that my hon. Friend's proposals will not reflect in any way the electoral college procedures and systems that operate in the United States, albeit with a different breakdown.

§ Mr. McDonnell
I accept that there is a similarity in the concept of an electoral college. The Bill is into its third year and I have sought to amend it for two and a half years. The principal element of introducing a full democratic vote based on one person, one vote has clearly been rejected at earlier stages. In addition, when we tried to introduce the concept of one person, one vote based on a residential vote plus the vote of the workers themselves, that was rejected. This is my humble and simple attempt—no, I mean my humble but complex attempt—to try to reach a form of compromise.
The attempt is to seek amendments—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) will enjoy this statement—allowing all the stakeholders in the City of London Corporation to be actively engaged in, and have rights and responsibilities to engage in, the political processes in the area covered by the corporation.

§ Mr. Skinner
I knew it. My hon. Friend has fallen for all this jargon. Stakeholders? Come on. What is the next phrase? New deal?

§ Mr. McDonnell
Given the lateral thinking in which we have had to engage when constructing the amendments, I have tried to suggest that the Bill should be entitled the "New City of London (Ward Elections) Bill".

§ Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst)
New city, new Labour.

§ Mr. McDonnell
Exactly. By following the philosophical trend that has been developed under new 1327 Labour to ensure that, in accordance with the Will Hutton approach, all stakeholders participate in arrangements for their areas, I have devised a compromise proposal.

§ Mr. Skinner
There are other words that should now be used, apart from "stakeholders". Has my hon. Friend turned his attention to words such as "clients", "customers" and "products"? It is not only stakeholders. This new language is about different things altogether. If my hon. Friend wants to move away from ordinary, run-of-the-mill, one-person-one-vote arrangements, he must think in terms not only of stakeholders, but of clients, customers, products, inputs and outputs. Has he turned his mind to such terms?

§ Mr. McDonnell
It is that form of synergy that I am seeking to address.

§ Mr. Dismore
I am a little concerned that the amendments do not address those concerns. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) made a good point. We are considering a proposal for an electoral college that, as I understand it, includes businesses, residents and employees. Where are customers represented? We are told time and again that the City is the powerhouse of the economy and has customers throughout the world, and not only locally. Are not those customers represented in some of the City's work? The college does not seem to provide for such representation.

§ Mr. McDonnell
It is true that the recipients of City services are not provided for. I tabled an amendment to ensure that any business voter who was elected to represent a business was chosen on the basis of a vote by shareholders or by members of the organisation in question. Unfortunately, that amendment was not selected for consideration. To overcome that, I have tried to ensure that the definition of the business college and the employees' electoral college ranges across the many organisations that provide such a variety of services in the area, as well as those who create the wealth—the workers themselves. I have sought to reflect all the different trades and professions and have proposed the best compromise that I can offer. Hon. Members will know that I always seek to ensure such compromise.

§ Mr. Dismore
I am sorry to keep intervening on my hon. Friend, but I am concerned about his remarks. As I understand it, in order to vote, employees must work for somebody who holds a City property, the value of which is above a certain rateable level. Many people in the City will not be in such a position, including those who travel about delivering things or who work from market stalls. Would such people be excluded from the provisions? I cannot imagine a market stall having the required rateable value.

§ Mr. McDonnell
That is why the proposal is a compromise. It attempts to offer the corporation some movement and does not seek to flood its operations with a work-force vote that will overcome all the vested interests that meet in various masonic lodges within the corporation area. It is a compromise that would introduce a system in which all interests in the area would be represented.

§ Mr. Corbyn
My hon. Friend obviously listened carefully to the remarks made by my hon. Friend the 1328 Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) in his intervention, but I am still anxious about whether people who work in Westminster as street vendors, newsagents or street traders, or who do other jobs in that sector, are to be excluded. Will there be an opportunity for further discussion with such people? A right to participate in the peculiar elections that are proposed should apply to everybody who works in the City, irrespective of whether they happen to be employed by a big business.

§ Mr. McDonnell
I shall not be set up as class traitor of the month. My position is clear. Under my original proposal, the electorate would compromise the residents and workers. Basically, the proposal was formulated on the Petrograd, Soviet model. It was as simple as that, and I do not know why it was rejected. I think that that rejection was unreasonable and that the proposal would have worked. It would have put us in a revolutionary situation in advance of many other cities in the world. However, it was rejected, and this is an attempt at a compromise. I accept that some petty bourgeois elements will not be represented in the electoral college because of their lack of stakeholding in the community, based on rateable value.

§ Mr. Dismore
I am concerned about what my hon. Friend has just said. I assume from his definition of "employee" that people who are self-employed will also be excluded. There is a great trend in the City for people to work on a self-employed, consulting basis, and they are not included in the definition. Is my hon. Friend attempting to exclude the self-employed as well?

§ Mr. McDonnell
My view is that the self-employed would come within the business electoral college. They would have a say over the eventual voters in the corporation area. That would give them their conduit into the democratic processes of the corporation. However, I accept that the issue potentially involves social inclusion based on the high level of rateable value set in the Bill. Again, that is a compromise. I have taken the original figure of £200 proposed by the corporation. I am happy for amendments to be tabled on that.

§ Mr. Dismore
Another group of people would potentially be excluded by the definition of "employee", and that is office holders. For example, police officers employed by the City of London police are holders of the office of constable but are not technically employees. The rateable value of their police station may be more than £200, but although they are City workers they would be excluded. Other office holders employed by the City in mediaeval positions are not technically employees but work in the City. Where do they fit into the picture?

§ Mr. McDonnell
The Bill refers to office holders in their occupation of individual premises in the City. Assurances were given by the corporation in the previous debates that office holders would be included. Clause 2 on interpretation refers to occupation", in relation to any hereditament— we have discussed how hereditament should be pronounced, and I go for the early French version— or part of a hereditament, means occupation by personal physical presence there and, in the case of a qualifying body … through a holder of any paid or unpaid office for the performance of whose functions. 1329 Therefore, office holders are included, and would be under my business college definition because of the definition in clause 2. If I am mistaken on that, the corporation's representative, the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), could advise us. Office holders would become a qualifying body and be part of the business electoral college.

§ Mr. Dismore
May I get the position entirely clear? As I understand it, that definition relates to business premises, and my hon. Friend just said that office holders would qualify as part of the business college. My question was why they do not qualify as part of the employee college because, to all intents and purposes, they are employees, not businesses. I take his point about self-employed people coming under the business definition, although some of them may question that. I do not see why people in the category that I have mentioned should be classed as businesses rather than employees.

§ Mr. McDonnell
I understand my hon. Friend's point. The employee definition enables people to be nominated if they are employed by a qualifying body. The office holder who is employed by the qualifying body could come under the employees electoral college. That is my understanding of the amendment, but I am open to further discussion and clarification, and perhaps amendment at a later stage to define that.
There was a discussion at a previous stage about not excluding organisations, such as voluntary organisations and churches, that had office holders located in the City. In my view, they would come under one of these electoral colleges, either as office holders or employees. Office holders in that instance would be part of the business college, but that is open to definition.

§ Mr. Skinner
Has my hon. Friend seen a copy of The Times today? There is a big article by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who says that in the new era of politics things will not be centralised as they were in the past. According to him, some of the old establishments will fade away, and there will be a lot of voluntary work and so forth. Apparently, there will be an army of 100,000 volunteers.
Has my hon. Friend been far-seeing enough to think about that when he has thought about the electoral college? Has he thought about the Women's Royal Voluntary Service and the Women's Institute? I am sure that those organisations want to play their part, and if we are moving into this new era he cannot afford to leave them out.
There should also be a section—

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. This is quite a lengthy intervention.

§ Mr. Skinner
There should be a white van man section.

§ Mr. McDonnell
Perhaps I should have begun with the detail and gone on to the principle.

§ Mr. Dismore
I said that.

§ Mr. McDonnell
My hon. Friend was right. I shall take his advice in the future.
1330 I think my definitions of the various electoral colleges are flexible enough to enable voluntary organisations to come under what could become a business electoral college, but will probably—and more importantly—be a section of the work force comprising volunteers, which will therefore be an employees' electoral college.
Before we engage in a grand debate on the principles, let me say something about the technical details of the amendments. Apparently an attack was made on "white van men", many of whom live in my constituency.

§ Mr. Mackinlay
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was fighting for their rights.

§ Mr. McDonnell
I accept that. I am referring to the alleged attack by me. There is no one who will not defend the right of white van men and women to vote for members of the City of London Corporation. Indeed, many who operate in the City live in my constituency.

§ Mr. Corbyn
Has my hon. Friend considered the role of contract workers employed in the City? An army of people working there leave before the office workers arrive—those who work for contract cleaning companies. Many have pretty poor working conditions, and I think that their rights should be recognised.

§ Mr. McDonnell
I think that contract workers would come under the definition of employee, but I would be happy to tighten that definition to ensure that they are referred to specifically.
I understand the problem. A particular section of the work force is vulnerable because its method of operation is open to exploitation, and it therefore requires representation more than those in more stable professions.

§ Mr. Dismore
I question my hon. Friend's assurance. It seems that, according to his definition, such people would qualify for the employee category only if the employer was based in the City. Employers' base of operation—this certainly applies to many contract cleaning companies—may be some distance away; they may bus people into the City in order to keep down their overheads. Effectively, my hon. Friend's amendment is disfranchising the army of workers referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

§ Mr. McDonnell
That can be easily remedied by a further amendment, which I shall be happy to discuss with my hon. Friend and with the corporation. That simple amendment would enable an employee to be defined by the rateable value of the agency with which the contract had been taken out. In other words, employees who served a particular firm, when the contract was with that firm, would be enfranchised by its rateable value.
I accept that there is a problem, and I am open to suggestions; but I will go to the wall to defend the principle of the electoral college in this context, especially given my experience of the electoral college in the election of the London Mayor, which proved so fruitful at the end of the day.

§ Mr. Dismore
My hon. Friend mentioned the electoral college in the context of the election of the Mayor. 1331 Will the same electoral college be used for the election of the Lord Mayor of London, who, of course, is someone entirely different?

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I think that we are straying rather wide of the amendment.

§ Mr.McDonnell
Let us be clear. The basis of my proposals is to establish electoral colleges, which will then enable the election of the City Corporation. In turn, through some form of divine guidance, a mayor is appointed, so it will be a form of representative democracy.
It being Seven o'clock, further consideration stood adjourned.
Bill to be further considered on Thursday 18 January.