Paul Goodman (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; Wycombe, Conservative)

The Committee will have noted that, in relation to all the clauses bar one, the official Opposition have adopted what might be called a scorched-earth policy towards the Bill. At first glance, we were inclined to take the same view of the next two clauses. However, I have to confess that we have looked at them again. They were introduced by Lord Graham in the upper House and the Department allowed them a lot of leeway. Clause 27, in particular, was welcomed by our noble Friend Lord Hanningfield. We have no objection to the clauses.

David Curry (Skipton & Ripon, Conservative)

I shall make one important point. We are now dealing with references to freewomen and freemen. Should the term not simply be “a freeperson”, given the prevailing wisdom that now we have a chair, not a chairman, and we talk about persons, not men and women? Should the term not be “a freeperson”, or perhaps just “a free”?

Julia Goldsworthy (Falmouth & Camborne, Liberal Democrat)

It is a pleasure to serve under your leadership—chairmanship, not leadership, Mr. Illsley, unless something more bizarre is going on. Bearing in mind what has already happened in Committee today, I would not be at all surprised if you had plans for world domination.

I shall make some general comments about freedoms of cities and towns. It is fantastic to recognise the hard work of citizens in such a way. It is a valuable honour to bestow. But once again, why is it necessary to set it down in primary legislation? I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify that matter. I understand the problem—some charters laying down how freemen and freewomen of a city or town are elected have become out of date and make it difficult to appoint women—but I am not entirely sure why that needs to be taken in hand in primary legislation.

I understand that such laws need to be more easily amendable, but why not free up the organisations on the ground to allow them to use their discretion? Some of the provisions are eminently sensible. The recognition of civil partners and spouses and the admission of women are welcome, but I am not entirely sure why the Bill needs to deal with whether we call them freemen or women.

As my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall pointed out to me, some of the qualifying resolutions require a majority of the existing freemen or women to elect the people whose names will be added. I wonder, as those people are often getting a little bit old, whether they might run out of numbers. I am slightly worried that, if the requirement is for freemen to nominate someone else to be given the freedom, there might not be enough of them around to make that decision. I wonder whether that issue needs to be addressed. It is an example of where we need to give more flexibility on the ground, rather than specifying things rigidly in primary legislation. However, everyone welcomes the principle that the clause is trying to achieve.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Communities and Local Government; Portsmouth North, Labour)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr. Illsley. I am glad that there is a broad welcome from both Opposition parties to the principles behind the clause. As the hon. Member for Wycombe pointed out, it was fully welcomed in the other place.

On the question of primary legislation, it is true that at least one guild has been able to amend the rights of admission to include women, but much depends on how the rights of admission were established—if in a charter, on what the charter says. Although some guilds have found sufficient flexibility in their rules to enable them to admit women or make other amendments to their admissions practices, others have not been able to do so because the charters or other sources of law from which their rules derive have no simple process for amendment. The clause will make that easier and provide a framework to make changes in the future. That is why it should appear in primary legislation.

Julia Goldsworthy (Falmouth & Camborne, Liberal Democrat)

I understand that point, but looking back to the broader thrust of the Bill, which the Government claim is trying to engage people in democracy, could we not have much broader terms that would allow some kind of public ballot or petition to prompt the granting of the freedom of a city to individuals, rather than a narrowly defined group of people? Would this not be an opportunity to throw open the whole issue to more public engagement, rather than just introducing some narrow changes that, while making improvements to make it easier for women to be admitted, for example, do not address the bigger issue?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Communities and Local Government; Portsmouth North, Labour)

This is enabling legislation, not compulsory legislation. We are making it easier for guilds to broaden their scope, and I want guilds to do that, so that we enable more people to take part. I commend the clause to the Committee.