HC Deb 15 December 1916 vol 88 cc1032-7

(1) Notwithstanding anything in any Act, a Member of the House of Commons shall not vacate his seat by reason only of his acceptance, at any time during the months of December, nineteen hundred and sixteen, and January, nineteen hundred and seventeen, of an office of profit, if that office is an office the holder of which is by law capable of being elected to, or sitting or voting in, that House.

(2) Where by virtue of this Act a Member of the House of Commons does not vacate his seat by reason of his acceptance of any of the offices mentioned in Schedule H. of the Representation of the People Act, 1867, and Schedule H. of the Representation of the People (Scotland) Act, 1868, and Schedule E. of the Representation of the People (Ireland) Act, 1868, as amended by any subsequent enactment, he shall, for the purposes of Section 52 of the Representation of the People Act, 1867, Section 51 of the Representation of the People (Scotland) Act, 1868, and Section 11 of the Representation of the People (Ireland) Act, 1868, be treated as if he had been returned as a Member to serve in Parliament since the acceptance by him of such office.

(3) This Act shall be deemed to have had effect as from the first day of December, nineteen hundred and sixteen.

(4) This Act shall not apply to the acceptance of any of the offices mentioned in the Schedule to this Act.

Mr. SHERWELL

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "months"["during the months"], and to insert instead thereof the word "month."

If this Amendment is adopted it will involve consequential Amendments. It is to carry out the object indicated in my remarks some time ago. With all respect to what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I am still unconvinced that there is any real or material necessity for the Government to take two months. The Home Secretary just now stated that my point was not a strong one, because there are Bills to be introduced with regard to the appointment of special Ministers for new Departments. But, so far as I can see, there is no difficulty at all in the Prime Minister appointing the Ministers to any Department he may choose under the Crown under the provisions of this Bill, nor is it at all clear to the House from any indication we have yet had that Ministers to new Departments that are to be created are to be included in any Bills that are to be brought before the House. It is perfectly true that in the Pensions Bill a particular Gentleman holding a particular office was designated. But I am not yet convinced that it is absolutely necessary in a Pensions Bill, or in a Bill creating a Ministry or Department, that the particular Minister should be designated. I am not yet convinced either that it is not open to the Prime Minister to do as has been done and designate particular Gentlemen for particular Departments and that their election be covered by the ordinary process of electoral law. If the right hon. Gentleman assures me that it will not be possible for the Prime Minister to appoint a Minister of Shipping, or a Minister of Labour, or Pensions Minister, without special legislation so appointing him, then I will withdraw my Amendment.

Sir G. CAVE

I think I can at once give the hon. Gentleman the assurance he desires and tell him that it is not possible that a Minister should be actually appointed until after the Bill authorising his appointment is passed. Until that happens, although he may be named, he cannot get his formal appointment or his badge of office, whatever it may be. That being so, it is possible that the passage of a Bill might run over till very nearly the end of the month and there might be a question of days. I hope, therefore, the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. KING

I do not think the Home Secretary has met the point quite fairly. Why should he not, in a case such as has been sketched just now, put a Clause in the Bill that the first Minister shall not, if a Member of the House of Commons, be subject to re-election? I think that is a very much better way of meeting the case, and would also allow the Government longer to make up their minds. The Government, of course, naturally, want to make up their minds quickly, but they cannot always do so. I hope, therefore, that this Amendment will be accepted.

Mr. BRUNNER

I have an Amendment down in a contrary sense to this. I want this Bill to be made permanent during the War, and I should like, Sir, to ask your ruling. If this is accepted, would it be possible for me subsequently to move to insert the words "the continuance of the present War," instead of the words in the Bill "the months December and January"?

The CHAIRMAN

I am afraid I have already put the Question that? the word "month" stand part of the Clause. Even if that were not so, the hon. Member's Amendment would seem to me to be contrary to the title of the Bill, which is to make temporary provision for the matters involved.

Mr. BRUNNER

I presume that the War is only temporary. My words are, "during the continuance of the War." I would suggest that they are in conformity with the word "temporary."

The CHAIRMAN

That is a matter on which the hon. Member may have his own opinion, but his Amendment seems to me to be going beyond what the House has just, on Second Beading, accepted. In any case, the word "month" is already before the House, and the Question is that the word "month" stand part of the Clause.

Mr. PRINGLE

Personally I think that the case for the word "month" has not been quite met by the Home Secretary. All the appointments have now been made in the case in which re-election is necessary, with the exception of the new offices. The new offices depend upon two Bills. The one is the Pensions Bill, and the second is the Bill which has been formally introduced to-day. In the Pensions Bill there is a Clause exempting the new Minister from re-election, and it seems to me that it is quite as easy to have a Clause in the Bill relating to the new Ministers and Secretaries exempting them also from re-election. There is undoubtedly that Clause in the Pensions Bill, so that for the purpose of the Minister of Pensions the month of January is not required. Consequently if this is to apply to the other Bills all that is required is that a Clause should be inserted similar to the Clause which is in the Pensions Bill. I do not think that the circumstances now are quite the same as when the last Bill was passed. At that time the new Ministry was reconstituted, as it were, on the border lines between two months, part of the appointments being made in the month of May and part in June. Here, however, all the existing appointments have been made in the month of December. Consequently the introduction of the month of January is only required for the new appointments, and in respect of the new appointments one is already safeguarded and the other can easily be safeguarded in the new Bill. There is only one reason why this should be done, and that is that there have been already in the Press indications that many of the appointments are temporary. The most powerful man in the country has written an article which has appeared in every newspaper in every Continent and has gone by wireless over the seven seas. In this he says that there are many "has beens" in the new Government and that they must be got rid of. It will be easy and possible to get rid of them in the month of January and to have the new men brought in under this Bill. In view of the fact that, in the first place, the Government proposal is absolutely unnecessary for the purpose of safeguarding the position of the new Minister, and secondly, in view of the risk of another revolutionary change in the Ministry during January, such as a General Election, I think that the House ought to safeguard itself by having these words put in.

Mr. WATT

I am quite in favour of the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend. I consider this measure a bad measure. Therefore, the shorter the duration of Clause 1 the better I shall consider the Clause. On that ground I support my hon. Friend, and on this point in particular: this is the third measure of this kind which has been brought before the House of Commons. Unfortunately on the other two occasions they have been passed. The duration of this measure, as has been pointed out by my hon. Friend, is longer than the duration of the last measure. The last measure was, I think, on the 3rd of June, and Clause 1 lasted over the month of June. This Clause 1 is extended for six weeks, so that each measure of this sort lasts for a longer period. This is exactly the way these things are wrought—longer and longer each time, until nothing; remains of the privileges which were the privileges of the people.

Sir G. CAVE

I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken that whereas the last Bill had only a month to run, this Bill has six weeks. But is it really worth while to make a point of that?

Mr. WATT

Yes.

Sir G. CAVE

Hon. Members will remember that besides these appointments there will be necessary appointments of Under-Secretaries and so on.

Mr. WATT

The case of Under-Secretaries does not apply.

Sir G. CAVE

I hope the Amendment will not be pressed, but that we shall be allowed to get our Bill. I am very desirous of meeting the House of Commons, but the point is such a small point.

Mr. PRINGLE

Are we to understand that there will be no other revolution during the time?

Mr. BRUNNER

Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman not accept my Amendment to insert the words "during the continuance of the War"? I feel that it will be very inconvenient to have this every time we change the Government. With regard to individual Members, it seems to me that it is only a question of degree. Assuming that one of the present Ministers falls ill and has to leave office, you will have exactly the same question in a smaller degree. I see the leader of the House (Mr. Bonar Law) present, and I trust that he will consent to have this Amendment made.

Amendment negatived.

Clanse ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2 (Short Title) and Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.