| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Mackinlay: My hon. Friend answers from a sedentary position, but in my view there is no logical
reason why serving Anglican ministers or Roman Catholic priests--although their Churches might not approve--cannot be candidates or serve in this House. They should be entitled to stand, although whether it is prudent for them to do so or is acceptable to their Church is a matter for them and their Church authorities. But there should be a presumption in a democracy that people can stand for the legislature, or there must be extraordinarily good reasons to exclude them.
I accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr said. It would have been ridiculous that had Bruce Kent been elected, he would have been prevented from serving as an hon. Member. There was no way in which he could have shed the fact that he had been ordained as a Roman Catholic priest. He would have been in a similar position to that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) before the passing of the Peerage Act 1963, in that there was no way in which he could get rid of his disqualification.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr that this is a ridiculous situation, but surely the answer is that priests--whether they are members of the Church of England or the Roman Catholic Church--should not be prevented from serving in the House. Episcopalian ministers from Scotland and Wales can be elected, and we know that ministers from other religions serve in this House. I hope that that will be looked at in the not too distant future.
Mr. Bates:
With the leave of the House, I shall respond to the speeches that have been made, which--by and large--were of a quality that will help the debate. When we looked at the Act and the amendments to it, we were aware that this was an on-going process. This is not a complete document by any means, and we are not seeking this evening to achieve perfect legislation.
The Act that we are amending now was passed in 1975 by a Government of a different colour. It is not perfect in every form, but the general principles are that we should try to maintain high standards and, wherever possible, avoid apparent conflicts of interest. In the time available to me, I shall try to respond to some of the serious points that have been made.
Mr. Peter Bottomley:
The House will be grateful for the attitude that my hon. Friend has shown at the beginning of his reply. In terms of the major parties--
Mr. Bates:
I am afraid that I do not know the answer to that. It is difficult to quantify, and only when the general election is called will the true nature of the answer be seen.
An important element of this is that the addition of the tribunals' lay members does not mean a change in policy. In 1975, the members of the employment appeal tribunal were disqualified. On taking up their posts, lay members of the tribunal signed an instrument of appointment which set out that they were prepared to resign their membership on adoption as prospective parliamentary candidates. That position is clear. Far from a conspiracy theory about trying to block certain people from entering the House, we were making a genuine effort to try to clear up a matter that could have been misinterpreted. Some may have thought that only the full-time personnel on the employment appeal tribunal would be disqualified, whereas it applied to all members. They should know that, because it was on the instrument of appointment that they signed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) made a sensible point when he talked about a similar case that had arisen when he was in office. We are talking about guidelines and, should it transpire after a general election that a candidate was elected who was disqualified under the Act, I am sure that the House would look carefully and sympathetically at the case.
Mr. Bottomley:
Is my hon. Friend saying that if I was appointed as a member of an employment appeal tribunal, I would sign a document to the effect that if I was adopted as a prospective parliamentary candidate I would stand down from the EAT, or that those who are appointed to industrial tribunals make that commitment? Would there be a significant harmful effect if the manuscript amendment to leave out lines 90 to 93 and lines 168 to 169 were accepted, so that we do not make the proposed change in this trawl but can come back to it on another occasion?
Mr. Bates:
I am talking about industrial tribunals as well as the employment tribunal; I should have made that clearer. On the generous offer of a manuscript amendment, the matter can be reviewed. It has been reviewed 10 times already; indeed, it is under permanent review. The last review was in 1993, and there is no reason why the point could not be considered again if it was deemed to be worth while. We drew on representations, many of which were made during the debate in 1993.
Mr. Spearing:
I understand the Minister's reluctance to accept even the suggestion of a manuscript amendment at this hour, but does he agree that another suggestion that might be taken up by readers of this debate is that, if a resignation was tendered, those who had to accept it and
Madam Deputy Speaker:
Order. Before the Minister continues, let me make it crystal clear that it rests with me whether a manuscript amendment is accepted. None will be accepted.
Mr. Bates:
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. That stops that line of inquiry in its tracks.
Mr. Spearing:
No, it is irrelevant to my point.
Mr. Bates:
I listened to the hon. Gentleman and I shall certainly reflect on what he said.
I apologise to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) for the fact that the rather lengthy list was put late into the Vote Office, if it was the case that in previous years the Opposition had longer to study it. We put it there a week ago, but we shall try in future to allow more time for hon. Members to consider our proposed additions. When the amendments that the Government have proposed are made, a reprint will be issued of the 1975 Act shortly afterwards, including a full list of all the positions at issue.
The hon. Member for Perry Barr made some passionate remarks relating to the clergy which were strongly endorsed by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham. It is important to recognise that a member of the clergy in the Church of England can resign his position by means of the Clerical Disabilities Act 1870 and take his seat in the House. There is no similar Act for Roman Catholic priests. Perhaps there should be: that must be considered on another occasion.
I want to take up the interesting point about the leader of the Referendum party and his position should he seek election to the House. The Council Act of 20 September 1976 establishes the rules for direct elections to the European Parliament, so changes to that Act are outside the scope of the motion. The rules do not debar members of national legislatures from membership of the European Parliament.
The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) made some interesting comments, some of which I do not agree with. He has a habit of looking for the conspiracy in everything: if the answers to questions are late, it must mean that the Government have something to hide, rather than a little bit of slowness in the courier service--which is in fact the only reason.
As the hon. Member for Perry Barr said, this is a deregulatory measure. Where the Act refers to areas, rather than island areas and regions, those are different entries. We have sought to combine them, and that is the reason for the changes.
The hon. Member for Thurrock made some disparaging remarks about my office, which I am sure that, on reflection, he will want to withdraw.
Mr. Mackinlay:
Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Bates:
Let me just finish what I am saying, because I have some better remarks to come. The hon.
Mr. Mackinlay:
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. My disparaging remarks related to him, not to his office. The point is that the "explanatory note" contained no explanations, and there had clearly been no consultation. That is why I say that the Minister's stewardship was not right. I do not see a conspiracy, but I believe that there should be proper transparency in the House. As happens so often, measures are being bounced through.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |