| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
4.56 pm
Mr. Jeff Rooker (Birmingham, Perry Barr): I apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the Minister for not being present for the beginning of the debate.
Mr. Peter Ainsworth (East Surrey): Disgraceful.
Mr. Rooker: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I am reminded of the debates that I read while preparing my speech. When a similar motion was moved in 1985, my colleague with the relevant responsibility was not present. As I had spoken on the previous legislation, I became the first speaker for the Opposition; so I have had my comeuppance.
It is interesting to note that we are not dealing with a statutory instrument or with delegated legislation, but are being asked to amend a schedule to an Act of Parliament on the say-so of a motion on the Order Paper. That might have some advantages, in that the motion is clearly amendable. However, it means that the normal scrutiny procedures of the House will not apply: we will not be able to examine the proposals, take evidence and ask questions. I shall return to that issue later.
I welcome the explanatory notes on the motion--although I think that they should have been available earlier. They were not available last Thursday when I left the building, so the Vote Office posted them to me on Friday and I read them during the weekend. In previous years, the notes were available from the Vote Office up to three or four weeks before debate in the House. The notes comprise an excellent, up-to-date list of the quangos established by the Government--many salaries run to six
figures--so it is a useful addition to our weaponry. The notes are not available for general sale: there is no price or reference number on the document. In a way, it is the main meat of the motion.
Other than the holders of office set out in section 1 of the main Act, such as civil servants, the police, the armed forces and members of foreign legislatures, those who are disqualified from membership of the House--the number runs to well over 1 million people--are not covered by statutory criteria. There are ambiguities, and there is a good deal of ministerial discretion as to who is and is not disqualified. We are now adding another 3,400 of our fellow citizens to the list of those disqualified from membership of the House of Commons. It is clear that membership of the House should be as open and as accessible to as many citizens as possible, and that disqualifications must be clear, unambiguous and reasonable.
Although it is called the House of Commons Disqualification Act, it does not cover all the people who are disqualified from membership of the House. Bits and pieces of a tabloid newspaper are being put through our doors by a fictional political party, which exists only in the bank balances of its leader. A member of a foreign legislature is not able to be a Member of the House. We can have dual membership of this House and the European Parliament. That usually means a seat in the United Kingdom Parliament and a seat in the European Parliament, but I am not sure about the arrangements. How does the Act apply to a person who sits in the European Parliament for a constituency in France and seeks membership of the United Kingdom Parliament? Perhaps the Minister could take advice on whether it is lawful for the leader of the Referendum party to seek membership of the House while being a Member of the European Parliament for a foreign nation.
The Act is comprehensive. I want to draw some of the paradoxes to the House's attention by way of illustration--I would obviously be out of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I went into substantial detail. Our fellow citizens are not treated equally: some are disqualified from being Members of the House under schedule 1, and some are disqualified under other Acts of Parliament.
The legislation that applies to ordained ministers of religion goes back to the House of Commons (Clergy Disqualification) Act 1801. When preparing for this debate, I was struck by the recent publication by Robert Blackburn, reader in public law at King's college, called "Electoral System in Britain". He delves into the history of certain aspects of the process, including parliamentary candidates. He gave examples that occurred in Oxfordshire. A candidate at the last general election in Oxford, West and Abingdon is disqualified for life from membership of the House because he used to be an ordained priest of the Roman Catholic Church, even though he has now resigned the priesthood. If he had won the seat, the House might have addressed the issue. Bruce Kent did not win, but even if he changes his faith or declares no faith, the fact that he was once an ordained priest of the Roman Catholic Church means that he is disbarred for life from membership of the House.
That does not apply to someone who is disbarred because he is a civil servant. The right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd) was a distinguished former Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary, and had previously been a civil servant.
One day, he was a civil servant and disqualified from membership of the House; the next day, he resigned and was able to be a candidate and serve as a Member of the House. The same applies to a minister of the Church of England, who is disqualified but can also resign and then be a candidate. Priests of the Catholic Church are disqualified for life, whether or not they remain in their faith. That is one of the inconsistencies and anomalies.
The Minister is now adding 3,400 persons to the list of those banned from membership of the House. He referred in his short introduction to the largest group: the 2,700 of our fellow citizens who serve on industrial tribunals. They are unpaid lay people who do a valuable job for society. They are required to be politically impartial in the execution of their judicial function: that is part of the operation of a tribunal. Why have they not been added to schedule 1 before? Industrial tribunals have existed for the best part of 30 years. Has consultation taken place? It is part of their terms and conditions that they cannot be Members of the European Parliament or Members of the House. Why change now?
The schedule was updated in 1993, 1985 and 1987: every three or four years, although not necessarily tying in with general elections; sometimes it has been twice in a Parliament. At no time have the general lay members of industrial tribunals been added to the list of those disqualified from serving in the House.
Some hon. Members may be justices of the peace, who are not technically banned from serving in the House. Members are advised not to sit as JPs, but if they can manage the requirement of 26 sessions a year, not in their own constituency and not as a paid stipendiary magistrate, technically nothing prevents them from being elected as a Member of the House. There is therefore a paradox if the requirement is for political neutrality or impartiality in a judicial function.
There is also a contradiction in respect of local government councillors who serve as magistrates, even in the locality of their council. Why are they allowed to continue to undertake a function for which they have to be judicially impartial while not being disqualified from membership of the House, whereas we disqualify the lay members of industrial tribunals? That does not make sense. It is not equal and fair treatment for people carrying out the same sort of quasi-judicial function. It is unfair that one group of 2,700 people--it includes members of industrial tribunals in Northern Ireland--is disqualified.
The schedule has been added to and has grown like Topsy at ministerial whim, without proper scrutiny by the House, because of the manner in which it is done--by resolution and not by statutory instrument. It gets worse. When I read previous debates, I was reminded of what happened in 1985, when I had to make a brief contribution. Full-time members of the judiciary are rightly disqualified from being Members of the House, but part-time members of the judiciary are not disqualified, as we shall hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). Why should a part-time paid judge, who acts as a recorder, be able to sit in Parliament, and a part-time unpaid member of an industrial tribunal be disqualified? It is not fair, does not make sense, and is wholly inconsistent and illogical.
I invite anyone who thinks that I am nit-picking to look at the first amendment to schedule 1. The Secretary of State for Scotland is disqualifying temporary judges from membership of the House.
Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South):
Quite right too.
Mr. Rooker:
Absolutely, quite right.
To disqualify temporary judges in Scotland and lay members of industrial tribunals yet allow part-time judges in England to sit in the House is inconsistent and unfair. I raised this point in the debate on 22 July 1985 at column 801. I asked about recorders and was fobbed off by the then Minister. He referred us to an earlier debate on 12 April 1983. I have taken the precaution of reading that debate again. Why part-time judges under the guise of recorders can sit in the House was not satisfactorily explained. We were given the historical reasons for the acceptability of that, but I did not find them satisfactory then, and I do not think that they are satisfactory now--especially in view of the fact that we are ruling out changes in regard to lay, unpaid members of industrial tribunals.
In our debate on 22 July 1985, when we discussed schedule 1, my speech was followed by one from a Conservative Back Bencher who challenged the whole idea that Ministers could add to the list of people disqualified from membership of the House as we are doing today. He made what I considered a powerful case for the criteria to be made clearer and more precise: it can be found in columns 802 and 803 of the Official Report. He described the current practice as "highly undesirable".
There are four criteria, and I ask the Minister to confirm that they are not statutory. The first criterion refers to
Also excluded are
The third criterion refers to
"offices of profit in the gift of the Crown or Ministers",
which includes salaried, pensionable and certain fee-paid posts. There is a de minimis of £8,000. People whose remuneration is below that level can, however, be excluded at the Minister's discretion.
"certain positions of control in companies in receipt of Government grants and funds, to which Ministers usually, though not necessarily, make nominations".
I shall return to that in a moment.
"offices imposing duties which, with regard to time and place, would prevent their holders from fulfilling Parliamentary duties satisfactorily"--
which means that they would take up too much time, or otherwise prevent a Member from attending Parliament.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |