Agenda item

(Sir David Wootton, Alderman)

13 October  2015

Freedom Applications Fee

In line with its enhanced role of monitoring the Freedom Applications process your Committee has reviewed the City Corporation’s policy which allows the fee applicable to Freedom applications to be waived for applicants who appear on the Ward List (City of London Electoral Roll).

Following careful consideration, the Committee is of the view that, in general, the waiver is an historical anomaly which has been maintained over the years without review. There is no longer any merit in retaining the current practice particularly as very few people made use of it. We are, however, of the view that whilst the practice should be dispensed with generally, it should be retained for candidates on the Electoral Roll wishing to stand for election in the City of London.

Accordingly a separately printed and circulated report has been submitted for your consideration. We recommend that the waiver of the fee applicable to Freedom applications for candidates who appear on the Ward List now be dispensed with.

(Sir David Wootton, Alderman)

13 October 2015

Freedom Applications Fee

In line with its enhanced role of monitoring the Freedom Applications process your Committee had reviewed the City Corporation’s policy which allowed the fee applicable to Freedom applications to be waived for applicants who appear on the Ward List (City of London Electoral Roll).

Following careful consideration, the Committee was of the view that, in general, the waiver was an historical anomaly which had been maintained over the years without review. There was no longer felt to be any merit in retaining the current practice particularly as very few people made use of it. The Committee was, however, of the view that whilst the practice should be dispensed with generally, it should be retained for candidates on the Electoral Roll wishing to stand for election in the City of London.

Accordingly a separately printed and circulated report was submitted for consideration, recommending that the waiver of the fee applicable to Freedom applications for candidates who appear on the Ward List be dispensed with.

A number of Members expressed their concerns in respect of the proposal and spoke against the Motion. During the debate, the following comments were made:

·      In reference to the recent decline in the number of registered residential and business voters, it was suggested that any action which might further discourage potential voters from becoming actively involved in civic life would be unwise at this time.

·      The appropriateness of removing one of the few privileges remaining to City voters was questioned, with it observed that the original intent of the introduction of the waiver had been to encourage increased electorate participation in the City's civic activities.

·      It was noted that the requirement to award the Freedom to those who claimed that they were intending to stand for election would mean that, in practice, individuals could avoid the proposed fee in any case. The need to award the Freedom to prospective candidates in the period ahead of the forthcoming elections in 2017 would make this particularly difficult to police and could lead to a situation whereby residents and workers within the City were unfairly disadvantaged by having to pay the proposed fee, whereas non-residents could avoid the fee by claiming that they were intending to stand for election.

·      Concern was expressed in respect of the potential impact on those City residents who, whilst being deeply proud of being City residents and cherishing the link with the Freedom, might struggle to afford the proposed fee. It was noted that only a relatively small number of people on the Ward List exercised their right to have the fee waived each year and that there would be no real financial benefit to removing the waiver.

Responding to the concerns raised, the Chairman thanked Honourable Members for their comments and accepted that the undertaking to offer the Freedom gratis to those intending to stand for election did cause some difficulty in respect of the proposal. He explained that the drive behind the proposal was in response to the calls to rationalise the Freedom applications process in the wake of the recent fee increase, removing a number of exemptions in the interest of overall fairness. He noted that there was no evidence to suggest that the current waiver had acted as an incentive to increased electoral participation, pointing to the consistently low-level of take up. He added that the Committee had expressed its doubt that the waiver was the most appropriate way to encourage electoral participation.

Upon the Motion being put, the Lord Mayor declared the report not to be carried.

Resolved – That the Motion be not carried.