| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed): On a point of order, Sir Alan. Is there any way in which you, as Chairman of the Committee, could enable us to hear a statement, perhaps from the official Opposition, explaining why they chose to deprive their leader, my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) of the opportunity to challenge the Prime Minister this afternoon?
The Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a matter for the Chair.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Further to that point of order, Sir Alan.
The Chairman: Order. I have just ruled that it was not a point of order.
Mr. Maginnis: The interesting thing about the title of the Bill is that it reflects neither the pressures nor the purpose that motivated the Government to bring it before the House. As it deals with the qualification of Members of the Dail and the Seanad to be Members of this House or the House of Lords, I looked into the number of people who would be qualified to become Members of this Parliament. I discovered that there were 166 in the Dail and 60 in the Seanad.
I know many of the people who would qualify under the Disqualifications Act 2000. I have dined and lunched with quite a few of them in the past fortnight, and I know no one who has any interest whatever in the Act. In fact, the opposite is the case.
The Chairman:
Order. I must advise the hon. Gentleman that he is talking about the Bill as a whole. He must direct himself to the narrow point contained in clause 4.
Mr. Maginnis:
Indeed, Sir Alan, I want to stick with the title because it is seen as a misnomer. The Bill is seen as something designed exclusively to facilitate Sinn Fein-IRA. Whereas the House will give the Bill the imaginative name "Disqualifications Act 2000", in
The significance of the Disqualifications Act 2000, or BITCH, as it will no doubt be called in future--
The Chairman:
Order. The hon. Gentleman may realise that he has probably overstepped the mark of order. There is no way in which that name could be a substitute in parliamentary language for what is in the clause. He must address his remarks to the clause and whether he believes that it should stand part of the Bill. There are no amendments to the clause on the amendment paper. The question is whether the clause should stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Maginnis:
Thank you, Sir Alan. I agree that it is unfortunate that the Committee spends so long taking a Bill that is so objectionable to so many people--
The Chairman:
Order. I do not want to hear any circuitous arguments. The hon. Gentleman must direct himself to the clause or I will ask him to resume his place.
Mr. Maginnis:
Thank you, Sir Alan. The fact is that the Disqualifications Act 2000 will, whatever it is called, bring a degree--
The Chairman:
Order. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would take my advice. He may not talk about the Bill or its effects, or what people think about it. He may say only whether the Bill, or Act as it may become, should be cited as the Disqualifications Act 2000. That is the only point before the Committee. I will not allow him to extend further than that.
Mr. Maginnis:
Sir Alan, you assist me in so far as you indicate in a reverse way the very point that I want to make. Whatever we call the Bill--I conclude with this point--it will invoke among hon. Members a huge amount of--
The Chairman:
Order. The hon. Gentleman is abusing his position. I call Mr. Ian Bruce.
Mr. Ian Bruce:
My remarks will be both in order and very brief, Sir Alan.
We all understand that, when Bills are brought before us in Committee, they are considered line by line, with the exception of the long title and the trade description title that goes with the Bill. I ask the Minister to think carefully about how the Bill will be considered in the future. Lawyers and others will want to be able to find the relevant legislation. My colleagues have already said that the Bill is not a disqualification Bill but one that lifts disqualifications for people.
It may have been sensible if we had tabled some amendments to the title. The dichotomy and the catch-22 that the Committee is in is that, once the Government
have decided to produce and publish a Bill with a name such as the Disqualifications Bill, it is difficult for someone to table an amendment that would be in order.
The Chairman:
Order. This is all very interesting, and the hon. Gentleman might like to find an opportunity for an Adjournment debate on the matter or to make a submission to the Procedure Committee, but it is not in order for him to discuss the matter in a clause 4 stand part debate. There was an opportunity to table amendments and none were tabled, so we are able to discuss only clause 4 as it stands.
Mr. Bruce:
I was simply trying to make the point that, had I tried to table an amendment, it would have been refused--
The Chairman:
Order. That may be an interesting procedural point, but it is not one that can be made at present. Does the hon. Gentleman have other points to make that are relevant?
Mr. Bruce:
In all humility, I ask the Minister whether, before the Bill goes to the other place, there is a device by which I would not fall foul of the rules of procedure on tabling amendments, which would enable the Bill's title to be changed to something more appropriate. That is my simple plea.
Mr. Leigh:
It is important that the short title of a Bill as important as this should adequately explain the Bill's purport to the general public. In some ways it does that. The word "disqualification" appears in the short title, so one would expect to find some reference to disqualification in the Bill and for the title adequately to reflect to a wider public what is contained in it. If we think in terms of a disqualification Bill, we presumably think of a Bill that disqualifies somebody.
Clause 2 makes it clear that the Bill disqualifies some people. It states:
However, clause 2 is only part of the Bill. My complaint about the short title is that clause 2 is not the heart and guts of the Bill. It was inserted after representations were made to the Government, but it is not what the Bill is really about. The Bill is not about disqualifying a Minister in the Irish Government; it is about qualifying people who are Members of the Irish Parliament to sit in this Parliament. That is my argument with it.
There is a political point to be made. The debate would have been much shorter if the Bill had simply been concerned with qualifying or disqualifying Members of the Irish Parliament. The Bill has aroused such passion because it is not about qualifying or disqualifying
Members of the Irish Parliament, but about qualifying known terrorists to use offices in this House of Commons. That is what infuriates people.
The Chairman:
Order. That is going far too wide of this stand part debate on clause 4.
Mr. Leigh:
It remains true, however, that a short title should adequately reflect to the general public what is in the Bill.
It may be said in the Bill's defence that it amends previous legislation. Clause 1 says that the Bill amends
I understand the Government's dilemma, caused by their uncertainty about how to frame their proposals. In the context of the procedure of the House, it would be interesting to know whether, when they introduce a Bill such as this that repeals earlier legislation, they must use the language--in terms of the short title--that was contained in that earlier legislation. I am not sure that they must, and I hope that the Minister will enlighten me.
Generally, Bills repeal or amend legislation in some way. It would be ridiculous for all of them to have the same titles as previous Bills, and I cannot believe that the Government are arguing for that. Why, then, are they calling this the Disqualifications Bill?
Mr. Robathan:
In referring to the short title, my hon. Friend has identified the confusion that lies at the heart of the Bill. The fact that we cannot tell from the short title whether the Bill is intended to disqualify people or to qualify them demonstrates the error of making constitutional change off the cuff, as the Government have been doing.
"No person may--
Therefore, the short title describes what is in clause 2.
(a) stand for election as First Minister or as deputy First Minister, or be elected as such,
(b) be nominated to hold a Ministerial office, or
(c) be appointed as a junior Minister,
if he is a Minister of the Government of Ireland."
"Section 1(1)(e) of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 and section 1(1)(e) of the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975 (disqualification of member of the legislature of any country outside the Commonwealth)".
It may be argued that the short title does not adequately convey the political purport, the guts and the sense of the Bill, but I must turn my argument on its head and approach the matter from a different direction. Because the Bill amends previous legislation, it is probably true that the Government had no choice but to call it the Disqualifications Act 2000.
2.45 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |