| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
5.41 pm
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock): It seems to me that whether the measure should be implemented by order is not the most important issue. The most important issue is whether the ideas in the motion have been properly canvassed. I listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), and it was clear that he had not had the opportunity to understand the full extent of the proposed amendments. If he has not had that opportunity, and other hon. Members have not been given reasonable time, the people most affected have certainly not been given notice.
I am thinking primarily of the people who diligently serve, basically as volunteers, on industrial tribunals. I shall talk about them later. It seems mean-spirited, if
not rather sloppy of the Minister not to allow an adequate consultation period before bringing the matter before the House. He can screw up his face as much as he likes, but he has not done that, and he is a sloppy Minister. That fact needs to be put on the record. [Interruption.] I shall come to the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) in a moment. If my adrenaline really starts to flow, when I start asking questions about people having other jobs besides being Members of Parliament--
Madam Deputy Speaker:
Order. I caution the hon. Gentleman against straying out of order by going far beyond what is before us tonight.
Mr. Mackinlay:
Indeed, I am very mindful of that warning, as always, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Once I realised that the subject would be debated today, I obtained the so-called explanatory note, but it is not very good. It consists of a list rather than an explanation. Consequently I tabled some parliamentary questions as soon as I could. I have just slipped out of the Chamber to see if any answers have arrived, but none has.
That is why I ask the Minister whether, if with the leave of the House he replies to the debate, he will explain the alterations affecting the position of lieutenants and lord-lieutenants of the islands in Scotland. Perhaps the changes are a consequence of local government reorganisation.
If the Minister had not been so dilatory and sloppy he could have included that in his explanatory note, or at least ensured that I received a reply before we embarked on the debate. If he were at school he would be given only four out of 10, at the most, for his stewardship of what should be a relatively easy matter to bring before the House.
I asked the Minister for an explanation because I wondered whether the Conservatives had selected a candidate who is a lord-lieutenant for an islands area. Perhaps that is why they had to make the exclusion. I do not know, but I am a pretty suspicious fellow when I think of some of the perverse offices whose holders are allowed to be Members of the House, compared with some of the offices that prevent their holders from becoming Members. Perhaps there was a political intention behind the change. No doubt we shall hear from the Minister soon.
Mr. Rooker:
I do not want to spoil a good speech, but, as I understand it, the alteration simply takes account of the fact that the word "region" is being changed to the word "area". So far as I know, it is a consequential change in the drafting.
Mr. Mackinlay:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but he has to be patient for only a few more weeks. He will soon be the Minister. I am criticising the existing Minister for not having regard to what I think is my entitlement as an hon. Member--a full and adequate explanation in the documentation. When that does not exist, and I table a question, surely courtesy dictates that the Minister should have ensured that I had a reply before we embarked on the discussion.
I know that things will be better in about six weeks' time, because my hon. Friend will be the Minister handling the matter. His undertaking to try to secure
parliamentary time for a root-and-branch review of the legislation is welcome. I look forward to that. Perhaps, contrary to his better judgment, my hon. Friend may even allow me to serve on the Committee on the Bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker:
Order. The hon. Gentleman must deal with what is happening now.
Mr. Mackinlay:
Reference has been made to hon. Members who serve on industrial tribunals. The change is being brought before the House a few weeks before a general election, and it is reasonable to suspect that, at a time when they were not disbarred, some people serving on industrial tribunals will have been selected by political parties as their candidates.
From this afternoon those people will be disbarred. One assumes that that information will filter down to them through the political parties, and they will have a choice of either surrendering their prospective candidacy or resigning from the industrial tribunal before nomination day.
As I said in my intervention, that is tremendously unfair. Unless the present Minister can give an undertaking today, it is unlikely that, having resigned from the tribunals, people who fail to be elected shall then be reinstated almost automatically, on a fresh application.
Mr. Peter Bottomley:
It may be helpful to recall that in 1984-85, for reasons that I shall not go into, a number of people resigned from industrial tribunals. As the assistant Minister at the Department of Employment, I managed not to accept their resignations, and later most of those resignations were withdrawn. I do not suggest that we should do anything underhand, but if the proposal before the House causes a problem, the Minister may want to consult and find out whether what happened then establishes a precedent. If so, members of industrial tribunals who stand for election can openly say that they have submitted their resignations, but if they are not elected the resignations will not be accepted, and will in effect be dropped.
Mr. Mackinlay:
That is a good idea. It demonstrates the fact that if there had been consultation, such ideas could have been bounced off the Minister informally. He might then have decided not to include members of industrial tribunals on the list in the first place--partly because it was a perverse daft idea anyway. We have heard no persuasive explanation for their inclusion. That was demonstrated by my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr, and there is no logical reason for it.
Mr. Bottomley:
An alternative would be for my hon. Friend to indicate whether a manuscript amendment could be submitted which would leave the members of industrial tribunals in the position after the passing of the legislation that they were in before--that is to say, they are not included. Were the Chair willing to accept such a late manuscript amendment to that effect, there would be no change from the present position. This might be
Mr. Mackinlay:
I wait with bated breath to hear the reason why they have been included on the list, and we will see why later on.
Mr. Spearing:
This procedure illustrates that Parliament--in what is almost a Committee-style debate--can not only find problems but, as the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) has just done, provide answers. It has just occurred to me that if there is to be a great exit from the Tory Benches, or a risk that some Tory Members may be looking for these jobs, those who are not on the Government Front Bench might be advantaged by the anomaly that I pointed out.
Mr. Mackinlay:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I now wish to refer to the amendment. As a matter of principle, serving members of the judiciary should not be Members of this House, as there is a conflict. That is not to say that hon. Members who hold those offices are anything other than diligent Members and skilled practitioners of law. That is not at issue. But it is a matter of constitutional propriety. It is wrong for people who are law makers in their judicial capacity--their judgments can become precedents and the law of the land--also to be Members of Parliament. To have that dual role is unhealthy in a democracy.
My second point on that is that we are talking about a paid office of profit. I am of the view that hon. Members should not have substantial paid outside employment but, alas, that matter is not at issue this afternoon. It is wrong that the state should pay people for substantial outside employment while they are also Members of this House, and the office of recorder is one such post. That is simply wrong. It is a matter of debate whether or not people should have outside interests, and they can defend their position. But the Crown should not be encouraging that in a modern democracy, as most hon. Members find that serving this House is a major preoccupation, seven days a week throughout the year. I hope that when my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr is the Minister he will bring forward legislation to deal with that.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |