HC Deb 06 March 1957 vol 566 cc357-95

A member of the House of Commons shall cease to be a member if being a barrister he receives in any year as a barrister acting for or behalf of the Crown or any department or office of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom remuneration in excess of one hundred pounds.—[Mr. Wigg.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Wigg

I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

I touched on the scope of this Clause during the debate on the Second Reading of the original Bill, and I should like to make it quite clear that I do not place myself, I hope, in the illogical position that, having sought on a previous occasion, to allow members of the clergy to sit here, I should, on this occasion, seek to disqualify members of the legal profession from being Members of this House.

As I said when I spoke at that time, I do not mind very much whether every member of the legal profession in this House receives preferment of an astronomical amount. In fact, I wish that every lawyer were earning £20,000 a year; it might encourage some of them to go to another place. I want to place no bar on any man, a member of any profesison, sitting in this House. Indeed, had I been an absolutely free agent I should have moved my new Clause in rather different terms.

Its history is this. I tabled the Clause before the Select Committee was set up. It was considered by the Select Committee, and it then became clear that I had a greater volume of support in the House than I had thought. I therefore did not think it right to alter its wording, as a number of hon. Gentlemen, I understand on both sides, have given the matter very careful consideration.

When I started to look into the matter I used the Order Paper, as I always do, as the proper means of obtaining information. I asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General a number of Questions. I thought that he went out of his way to make it perfectly clear that, while it might be proper to question other Departments of State about the activities or emoluments of hon. Members, he resented—I thought that he savagely resented—the fact that I should seek to inquire—I believe that he thought that I was prying—into the secrets of the legal profession.

All that I then sought to do was to ascertain the names of hon. Gentlemen who had received Government briefs, and when it appeared that I could not have the names, I subsequently sought to find out the numbers and the amounts. So that my Questions should not show a party view, I asked that the information should go back to 1945. In other words, my approach to the problem is, and was then, that while I have no objection whatever to the Attorney-General or any other Minister giving what briefs they wish, of what amount they like, I think that the House and the public ought to know how much these gentlemen are getting, for the patronage that is exercised by the Government—and, indeed, at one time by the Crown—assumes a different aspect at different times.

It is, of course, asking of human nature far too much that a man should be required, perhaps, in defence of his opinions to forgo his livelihood. That issue might well arise, and I am quite confident that it has arisen in the past. I am not saying that about hon. Gentlemen on this side or on that, nor am I saying that it applies to any hon. Gentlemen in this present Parliament, but I do not believe that at no time in, say, the present century no member of the legal profession has tempered what he was to say or perhaps even modified his votes because he was in hope of patronage from one State Department or another.

3.45 p.m.

I do not think that members of the legal profession are any worse, and I also do not think they are any better, than any other members of the community. Therefore, if we seek to preserve the dignity of the House, and to lay down rules, and very strict rules, about ordinary hon. Members and ordinary Departments of State, I ask that the same rules and the same standard shall apply to the legal profession.

This, of course, is a matter of history. There was a time, and I think that there are still survivors of it, when the House of Commons was organised, and the times of its meetings arranged to meet the convenience of hon. Members who were lawyers. [An HON. MEMBER: "It still is."] Perhaps it still is, and perhaps there are some who would not like to change that. However, I do not think that, in asking the Committee to treat this as a very serious problem indeed, and one which should be brought into the light of day, I am asking too much.

In talking to hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House I have met with one argument. It is put to me that if this new Clause were accepted, a number of ex-Attorneys-General and ex-Solicitors-General would thereby be debarred from giving their legal services to the Crown. It is said that as they are men of great eminence their earnings are high, and that to put a bar of £100 on what they earn would be not only an injustice to them, but would be depriving the State of their great and eminent legal services in cases which the Government might wish those services to be at the country's disposal.

Surely that is putting their sense of public spirit at a very low level indeed. Day by day, dozens of hon. Gentlemen on both sides sit on Select Committees, do the humdrum business outside this Chamber and do not get a penny for their services. If, therefore—I shall not mention names, but a constituency did come to my lips—a right hon. and learned Gentleman who is an ex-Attorney-General were to learn that his services were urgently needed by the State, I am quite sure that the present Attorney-General would only have to ask him and his services would be given free in exactly the same way as the services of any hon. Member are at the disposal of the House and of the Government. Therefore, although this argument is put forward seriously, it seems to me that it is two-edged. I do not think that, in accepting this new Clause, the Government would be depriving themselves of the services of such lawyers.

I do not want to say any more. I wearied the House on a previous occasion by arguing my case on the basis of the refusal of the Attorney-General to reply during the original Second Reading debate, and I do not think that I need repeat those arguments today. I conclude with the words with which I started. I have a great respect for the legal profession—a great respect. They are men of tidy minds, who are always considering whether every argument is "buttoned up." But what the House of Commons needs is not only tidy minds, not only arguments which are all "buttoned up," but common sense. The House needs men of conviction. It needs men who believe in something, not men who all the time are speaking from a brief.

Moreover, the abler the lawyer the less likely he is to make a good Member of the House of Commons, because the very qualities that make him a good and successful lawyer keep him from regular attendance on this House. The first thing that an hon. Gentleman has to learn on coming here is that if he wants to love and serve the place he has to spend lots of time here, because the opportunities come and the opportunities go. As I say, the successful lawyer is busy with his briefs, busy in court, busy in chambers. He has to miss the humdrum but essential business of sitting on Select and other Committees. He cannot be here for Questions.

Therefore, while the House of Commons needs the services of able lawyers—the very nature of our business on occasions necessitates the advice of legal gentlemen—it would be a very bad day for Parliament and for the country if the legal influences were to become over-strong. Whether the Committee accepts that argument or not, at least we ought to know who is getting what. That seems to me to be the very least of our arguments, and, to elicit the information on who gets what, I am moving this Clause, which seeks to make quite sure that no barrister who earns more than £100 shall be a Member of the House of Commons.

The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller)

I must confess that I was expecting this debate to be carried on for a little while longer before it fell to me to reply to it. Of course, I am only too glad to reply to the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) straight away, because we have got a good deal of business to do and I should like to deploy my answer to this proposed new Clause.

First, I will deal with the Questions which the hon. Gentleman asked—and I do not think I need go into it in any detail—about my personal income, among other things. I do not think that there is any need for me to disclose those details at this Box. What the hon. Gentleman was seeking to do was to find out more about how the system of nomination works and how it has been operated. I appreciate that this may be a somewhat difficult problem for those who are not engaged in the law.

The hon. Gentleman seemed to think that I had some influence with regard to the appointment of Recorders and the payment of fees on Crown briefs. Of course, I have not. An Attorney-General has no say or control whatsoever over the fees that are paid to counsel whom he nominates. When an Attorney-General nominates, counsel are briefed by the Treasury Solicitor or the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Solicitor for whatever Government Department may be concerned, and then the fee paid is a matter for arrangement between the Government Department and the set of chambers.

I ask the hon. Gentleman to accept that it is not possible for me—because we have no records—to say what fees are, in fact, received by barristers who are also Member of the House of Commons. We have not got the details in our office. We do not keep them; we never know them, because we are not informed of them.

I would ask the Committee to bear in mind that at present we are considering two main heads of disqualification—one relates to holders of offices of profit under the Crown, and the other relates to contracts or arrangements for the furnishing or providing of money to be remitted abroad or wares and merchandise to be used or employed in the service of the public. Those are the two main heads of disqualification at present.

Those barristers who are appointed standing counsel for the Crown have been for many years prohibited by the terms of their appointment from holding that appointment on becoming Members of Parliament. That has been an effective and satisfactory method, which is now being embodied in the provision in this Bill which disqualifies standing counsel. But under this Clause we are not at all concerned with any barrister who holds anything in the nature of an office. We are concerned only with those barristers who from time to time earn fees for conducting cases for and advising the Crown.

Of course, a barrister is not in contractual relationship with the Crown. It may be said to be a relationship which is in some respects analogous to a contract. This Clause seems to run contrary to the main spirit of this Bill in that it seeks to bring back a disqualification based on what is really a quasi-contractual relationship. When the hon. Gentleman said that we ought to apply the same rules and the same standards to the legal profession—a proposition generally with which no one would disagree—I would say to him that this proposed new Clause departs from the standards and the rules which this Bill lays down with regard to all other professions and all other people, because it is seeking to bring back as a basis of disqualification the amount of fees that are earned. That is quite contrary to the spirit of this Bill. The matter may be one of disclosing one's personal interest, whether it be a contract or a fee or in any other way. It is not a matter of disqualification.

I would point out, also, that barristers are not the only members of the professional classes who earn fees from the Crown. Why should they be singled out for disqualification? There are also solicitors, architects, doctors, dentists and surveyors. There is a long list. They all draw fees from the Crown. There is no reason for saying that barristers should be singled out for disqualification in the way that this proposed new Clause suggests.

There is no reason for saying that the barrister who earns 96 guineas in a year is disqualified and that one who earns 95 guineas is not. No ground can be suggested for saying that the earning of 96 guineas is incompatible with membership. It cannot be argued that the fees paid in the past to barristers who are Members of this House have been given either to reward the faithful on this side of the House or as bribes to the "infidels" on the other side of the House. There is no substance in that suggestion. Past history shows that there is no ground for imputing anything of that kind. That suggestion, therefore, falls to the ground. One cannot justify this new Clause on the ground that it is incompatible with membership of this House for a Member of this House who is a barrister to earn 96 guineas in the course of a year.

It may be thought that I and my predecessors have had a great deal of patronage in this matter. I should like to say a little about that, because it may not be generally realised within what a small compass the matter which we are discussing on this new Clause lies. I gave a good deal of information to the Select Committee. It will be found in the Select Committee's Report, and I need not reiterate it now, but I should like to bring the matter up to date. Since I have been Attorney-General I have been responsible for a total of 2,598 nominations. It sounds a large number.

Mr. Frank Bowles (Nuneaton)

Are those briefs?

The Attorney-General

They are nominations for conducting cases. That includes all nominations which are made from my office of counsel on circuits and everywhere else. Of those nominations, no more than 45 have gone to Members of this House. Those 45 have been distributed among 15 Members of Parliament.

As I said before the Select Committee, and also, I believe, in our last debate on this subject, I think it would be invidious of me to give the names and the numbers. If pressed, I would, naturally, like to consider the request, but I am reluctant to say who has been nominated and how often. Even if I were to give that information, I could not indicate what fees they had, in fact, earned because I have not the least knowledge.

4.0 p.m.

Of those 15 Members of Parliament, eight were Conservative, six Labour and one Liberal. I would assure the Committee that I have acted throughout on the same principle as I am sure my predecessors have followed, namely, to try to secure the right man for the case—that is the first main object—and to ensure as fair a distribution of the work as possible among those who are available and fit to take it. One cannot, of course, have hard and fast rules about that. The vast mass of nominations is, in fact, for cases of the Director of Public Prosecutions. I took a sample check of about 500, and I found that no less than 380 out of the 500 in one period were Director of Public Prosecutions cases, many of them on circuit.

It is sometimes said, and I think it was suggested in the last debate, that it might perhaps be a good thing if the selection were done by the Government Departments direct. I, personally, do not think that it would be. I think that we should probably get certain people becoming, as it were, favourites of particular Departments, and we should not get that fair distribution which I seek to ensure and we should not get a number of people competent to do the various types of work. In fact, of course, if such a transfer were made, it would make very little practical difference because, under the regulations under which the Director of Public Prosecutions acts, I am responsible for nominations in that class of case.

Mr. Bowles

The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned that work was given to 15 Members of Parliament, eight Conservative, six Labour and one Liberal. Did they get one brief each, or did they get a number of briefs? Could he tell us how many there were?

The Attorney-General

I said 45 briefs among the 15 Members of Parliament.

Mr. Bowles

Altogether, making three each?

The Attorney-General

I do not say that it is equally divided. It depends on the type of case, where it is, which circuit, and so forth. But I do my best to see that there is a fair distribution.

I should say that in addition to the 2,589 cases in which nominations have been made, there have been 77 nominations in Revenue cases, and, of those 77, 15 have been given to five Members of Parliament, three of whom are Conservatives, I think, and two from the party opposite. I do not know whether the Committee would require me to go into more detail about the allocation, but I can assure the Committee that I seek to give the fairest possible distribution.

The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), in his humorous speech in moving this Clause, suggested that it would not matter very much if the Clause were brought in, because any ex-Law Officer would be prepared to do work in excess of £100 a year free for the Crown. I was a little astonished at that proposition coming from him, because I thought that he was a great believer in the rate for the job.

Mr. Henry Usborne (Birmingham, Yardley)

I wonder whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman would explain to me a remark which he made a little earlier, which I find a little puzzling. He took the point that it might be advisable for the various different Ministries to brief their own counsel, and then he went on to say that that might lead to favouritism. He concluded, evidently, that when his office did it there was not any favouritism. I should like him to explain that. He is perhaps quite right about it; but why is his office so completely impartial, whereas other offices are evidently not so impartial?

Mr. G. Lindgren (Wellingborough)

rose—

The Attorney-General

Perhaps I might answer the question put by the hon. Member for Yardley (Mr. Usborne) first.

I was dealing with a suggestion which had been put forward for a possible change. It is not a suggestion made in this Clause. I was saying that I was rather against it, for this reason, that if a particular Government Department does the work on its own it will tend to confine itself possibly to one, two, three or four people, depending on the volume of the work, and we should not get that general distribution among Members of the Bar which I myself regard as useful and desirable.

If one has two or three what one might call favourites, and they take other work or fade out, there is no one trained to take their place. One particular instance is criminal work. I try to see that there is a fair distribution between the different people, smaller, simpler cases going to the young men who have just been called, more difficult cases to those more experienced, and cases which are really difficult going to those with great experience. I doubt that one would get that same classification and distribution in any other way.

Mr. Lindgren

The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the rate for the job. Does he not realise that there are many Members of the House of Commons who give their whole time to the House who do not get the rate for the job? Why is it more necessary for a lawyer to get the rate for a job away from the House than it is for a Member of Parliament, attending a Standing Committee two or three times a week, to have the rate for the job?

The Attorney-General

I am not going into the question of the rate for the job for Members of Parliament.

Mr. Lindgren

It was raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

The Attorney-General

With respect, I did not raise it. It is the hon. Member for Dudley who raised it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, he did, by what he said. Let me explain it for a moment or two.

The hon. Member suggested that only barristers or, I think he said, ex-Law Officers, should be expected to, and would, if asked, do their professional work, that is to say, handle briefs in the courts, for nothing once they had earned £100. I was suggesting that that struck me as rather a novel suggestion —[An HON. MEMBER: "A joke."]—it may have been a joke—and I said that it was really contrary to the view that one should get the rate for the job. But that is quite a different subject from any question of sitting in Standing Committees and things of that kind.

Mr. Wigg

I am much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. He answered a point put by my hon. Friend the Member for Yardley (Mr. Usborne), who asked what special quality the holder of the office of Attorney-General had which holders of office in other Government Departments do not have. I put this same point to him on 9th November, 1955, when I said: What special qualifications has the right hon. and learned Gentleman or any holder of his office, which requires that we should trust him, when we do not trust any of his right hon. or hon. Friends?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th November, 1955; Vol. 545, c. 1902–3.] Would he be kind enough to answer?

The Attorney-General

I thought that I had answered, but I will explain it a little more if the hon. Gentleman wishes.

Government Departments, or their representatives, are not likely to be in anything like as close touch with the Bar as a whole as the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General. They are not likely to know all the young men—all the good young men and all the others. They may pick on one and think that he is very good, but this may mean that they ignore the claims of the others. In my view, the Law Officers, who do keep themselves in touch with the profession, have a wider knowledge of those who are competent to deal with particular types of case. I really cannot say more upon it. I think that that is so, in fact.

Mr. Wigg

The right hon. and learned Gentleman has given a wholly satisfactory answer from his point of view, but does he not realise that he is now admitting that he has applied a standard to those to whom he gives briefs which would not be permitted for one moment in any other Department? He says that he looks at the young men—quite right—and he wants to help young men in his profession. What would he say if the Minister of Health nominated surgeons or dentists, not for their professional ability, but because he wanted to give one of the lads a start?

The Attorney-General

Either I have not made myself clear or the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. I would repeat what I said and try to explain it to the hon. Gentleman. He must realise that cases must vary tremendously in magnitude, complexity and difficulty.

Mr. Lindgren

And in what a man gets for them.

The Attorney-General

And in what a man gets for them.

I said, and I say again, that the governing principle in the nomination of counsel is the selection of the right man for the job. One does not consider whether a man is a Member of Parliament or not; that has nothing to do with it. One considers whether he is the right man. At one end of the scale, when one gets a simple case one does not require the most experienced man to conduct it. One can get the right man although he is less experienced. That is what I mean by saying that there is a fair distribution of work, and sometimes more briefing of younger barristers than might otherwise occur. In that way one gets, I believe, a fair allocation of the work and it is to the advantage of the Crown's service generally.

It was the recommendation of the House of Commons that the hon. Member's Amendments should be considered by the Select Committee. They were considered—I have no doubt carefully. I gave evidence on them, as the hon. Member knows, and the Select Committee rejected them by eleven votes to one. Having considered the matter once again I must advise the Committee that in our view there is no need for the Clause, that there is no justification for it, and that there really is no ground whatever for singling out members of the Bar who are Members of this House for different treatment, in relation to what is a quasi-contractual relationship, than any other Member of the House of Commons who belongs to any other profession.

Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas (Leicester, North-East)

I realise that one is exposing oneself rather awkwardly on an occasion of this kind. I must at once confess to a certain interest and equally confess to disagreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). He introduced the Clause with great fairness and, indeed, kindness. I expected very much greater trouble from him than, in fact, was forthcoming. I agree with my hon. Friend that this is a matter of tremendous importance. I think that in this case he has started from a wrong analysis of the premises and has, therefore, come to a wrong conclusion. I want to put before the Committee, as briefly as I can, how the matter strikes me.

First, the principle upon which this proposal is based is not simply to eliminate the Executive patronage of Members of Parliament. If that were a fundamental principle of general application, my hon. Friend would have proved his case, except with regard to the £100 provision which seems to me to be quite ridiculous. If my hon. Friend is going for the case, he should have gone for it straight out without any exception of £100 at all.

Consider, for example, a young man who is starting at the Bar. He may get briefs up to £25, £50 or £100, perhaps more than he would make in a whole year. If he gets that much patronage to start him off, it is much more valuable to him than considerably bigger sums later. I am not, however, taking a frivolous technicality of that kind against my hon. Friend. What he is concerned with is the principle, whether the £100 is there or not. It is on that principle that I shall deal with his new Clause.

The true principle is not, of course, to eliminate Executive patronage of Members of Parliament. The principle always was to eliminate Crown patronage where there was danger arising from it of influencing votes in the House of Commons. The Attorney-General referred to the enormous field of patronage that is now open to the Executive. We have all kinds of contracts and all kinds of other professions than the Bar. In this case, the Bar is being chosen as the one kind of profession which has to be penalised by the amendment that the new Clause would make to the Bill. There is no corresponding amendment dealing with any other profession, or, indeed, with any other contracts.

What my hon. Friend has to establish —and he may have a good deal of sympathy in the Committee in trying to establish it—is that there is a vicious peculiarity about the Bar which makes its members extremely susceptible, in an improper way, to patronage by the Executive. There is no evidence of that.

Mr. Wigg

My hon. and learned Friend has introduced the word "vicious". I did not do so, but he knows the Bar much better than I do. I would never call its members vicious. Apparently, my hon. and learned Friend could not have listened to the first part of my argument. I am not concerned about the £100. What the public want to know, and what I want to know, is: who gets what?

4.15 p.m.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas

My hon. Friend wishes me to speak to something other than the new Clause?

Mr. Wigg

Yes.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas

We cannot have that. I am prepared to accept my hon. Friend's new Clause as a matter of principle without the £100. I am treating it on the footing that he is sufficiently wise not to include any reference to the £100 at all.

I was not suggesting that my hon. Friend was saying that I and my hon. and learned Friends in the House of Commons were vicious, nor, indeed, was I suggesting it. What I was suggesting was that what has to be established by any Amendment which is made to the Bill is that the Bar is somehow, by some peculiarity, distinguished by some viciousness, from other professions and distinguished from businessmen with whom contracts can be made.

To prove his case, my hon. Friend has to establish a peculiar viciousness on their part which distinguishes them from other people, which, of course, he himself completely disclaims. I accept what my hon. Friend says, that members of the Bar are no better and no worse than the general run of the community, but once he makes that admission—I hope he recognises this—the ease for his treating the Bar in this peculiar manner completely collapses.

Mr. Wigg

That is a non sequitur.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas

I have not finished. If my hon. Friend had followed my reasoning, he would see that it is a complete sequitur. First, there is no evidence of that, and secondly, it is ridiculous to suggest it, not only because —although I do not expect my hon. Friend to accept this—of the traditions, and so on, of the Bar itself, but also because of the strength of the party machine.

Now, I come to the constructive part of my observations. I accept what my hon. Friend said, that the nature of the danger from patronage changes from age to age, according to the different relationships; of course, that is so. The danger in the present set-up is not really from the Crown influencing Members of Parliament in their votes in the House of Commons. The danger nowadays is from the too great power of the Executive, not only in the House of Commons but throughout the country. Therefore, the vice at which my hon. Friend ought to be hitting is not by making members of the Bar in the House of Commons less susceptible to, if I may use the term, bribery in their votes—the word was used in an intervention and I accept it; it is not a nice word, but it describes what is in my mind; perhaps "pressure" might be better—the danger is not in the bribery system in the House of Commons, but is the growing strength of the Executive generally by the spoils system, whether in the House of Commons or outside.

I would welcome the Attorney-General ceasing to have the patronage over briefs. I think that my hon. Friend's Clause should be framed in that way instead of in its present form. It is not an answer for the Attorney-General to say that it is perfectly all right for him to allocate briefs, just as it is for other Departments to allocate them. That does not quite meet the argument.

In the case of the Attorney-General allocating briefs, I accept at once that it has been properly done at all times; I am not suggesting otherwise. But we have in this case a Minister of the Crown, a member of the Executive, himself directly, personally doing so. That seems to me an invidious position. I should have thought that any Attorney-General would have been glad to be rid of that. The more that the patronage is removed from the member of the Executive, the better it is.

I would have welcomed an amendment of the Bill on those lines. Indeed, the Attorney-General did not indicate that he was completely set against it but said, quite fairly, that in his view the existing arrangement was desirable. I did not gather from him that he was so hard and fast in his view about that as to consider it should be debarred from consideration altogether.

Sir Lionel Heald (Chertsey)

Would the hon. and learned Gentleman tell the Committee who would do this better and more impartially than the Attorney-General?

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas

If I did not make myself clear, I am obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his intervention, which will allow me to make myself clear.

I am not suggesting that anybody would do it more efficiently or more impartially. That is no part of my case. I hoped that I made that clear. The point I am making is that there is patronage in the hands of a member of the Executive and that it is direct patronage, and that it is undesirable, in my view, that that should be seen to exist, and I think that the further it is removed the better and that it is desirable that it should be removed from the direct control of the Executive.

Mr. Eric Fletcher (Islington, East)

Would my hon. and learned Friend not agree, following the query of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald), that the obvious person to suggest would he the Treasury Solicitor?

Sir L. Heald

A servant of the Executive?

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas

I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will follow the argument. We are at cross-purposes at the moment. I am not saying, and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) is not saying, that it is better in the sense that thus it would be more impartially or more efficiently done. We are not suggesting that at all. What I am suggesting is that it is, on principle, preferable that patronage should be removed as far as possible from the Executive and the direct head of the Executive.

Sir L. Heald

The difference is that the Treasury Solicitor is a servant of the Government and that the Attorney-General is not a servant of the Government. I should think, therefore, that the Attorney-General is more likely to be free of influence than the Treasury Solicitor.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas

I know the anomalous position, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows the anomalous position, which the Attorney-General occupies. However, I shall not pursue that further. I hope that I have made the position perfectly clear to hon. Members.

From the point of view of the Bar, the position in the House of Commons is really becoming somewhat serious. Because it is very pertinent to the matter we are now considering, I would put before the Committee what the position is. Before the war, members of the Bar, of all parties, and the best members of the Bar, almost automatically became Members of the House. That is no longer the position, and it is a serious matter. Until the recent by-election at Lewisham, North not a single member of the Bar has become a Member of the House on our side. Members of the House who are also members of the Bar have left the House to go back to the Bar.

I understand from businessmen that the House of Commons is not getting from among businessmen people it would be desirable to have in the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes. There have been a certain number of people coming from the Bar into the House upon the other side, but, nevertheless, it is true to say that we are not getting into the House, on either side, the representative members of the Bar we used to get before the war. I think that that is a thoroughly bad thing. It is a bad thing for the House and it is a bad thing for the Bar, and, indeed, for the Bench.

What we need is an inquiry into the whole position of Members of the House of Commons. There are complaints, with which I have complete sympathy, among Members of the House who give their full time to the work of the House. The work of the House could not be done unless they gave their whole time to it. They receive for it a salary which is utterly inadequate. The same can be said about junior Ministers of the Crown. We find difficulty in filling some of the junior offices because junior Ministers are not being paid enough for the purpose. They are not being paid salaries comparable to those which persons of that quality would be paid for work outside.

There is a tendency, and it is inherent in this new Clause, although the new Clause increases the tendency to an insignificant degree only, yet still to some degree, to cut down still further the handicaps which are already excluding people from membership of the House of Commons. It requires not only full-time Members, but, I personally think, part-time Members, too, of experience of different occupations, and it requires them upon terms which neither starve those who give their full time to the House nor kill those who give part of their time to it, contrary to what the position is at the moment. The way in which the Government have dealt with this problem is cowardly and despicable.

There is a school of thought which believes in some sort of spoils system, to which I, personally, am most strongly opposed. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley has referred to the history of this matter, and it is no secret that in days gone by, long, long ago, judicial offices were considered fair rewards for political work. We know that during the Chancellorship of Lord Jowitt and Lord Simonds—I shall not go back further—that matter was dealt with in a way which commanded the complete respect of the whole of the profession. It is extremely important that it should be maintained.

We want the House of Commons made a place where persons can serve and be provided with independence in doing that service. The danger now is not pressure from the other side of the House of Commons. The requirement is independence of pressure of the party machine itself. That is the big problem which entails the payment of Members of the House of Commons, the security of Members of the House, and the quality and general position of Members of the House, including their occupations inside and outside.

It is this enormous problem to which the new Clause of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley leads. I should like to see an impartial and a very high-powered inquiry into the whole position of membership of the House of Commons, including, although merely as one aspect of the matter, albeit an important aspect, the proper payment of Members of the House of Commons, so as to ensure completely independent membership of this Assembly.

Mr. Ronald Bell (Buckinghamshire, South)

Like the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas), I am opposed to the new Clause, and, like him, I have an obvious interest to declare in it. The guiding principle which the Select Committee on the House of Commons Disqualification Bill had in mind in approaching the whole subject of disqualification from membership of the House is set out in the first paragraph of its Report, in which it says that the first principle is …that qualification for membership of the House of Commons should be on as wide a basis as possible. That was the consideration which certainly influenced most hon. Members who served on that Select Committee in reaching the recommendation which it presented to the House. In pursuance of that, the Select Committee swept away the general disqualification of Members on account of holding offices of profit, and replaced it by a schedule in which particular offices of profit are listed. No other office disqualifies a person from membership of the House of Commons.

4.30 p.m.

The Select Committee, secondly, recommended an equally great change, namely, that all disqualifications on the ground of contracting with the Government should be abolished. It would be a strange innovation, indeed, if in the Bill we were to introduce a new disqualification, which never existed before, on the acceptance of a Crown brief. It has never disqualified before.

Mr. Kenneth Pickthorn (Carlton)

Being a lawyer has disqualified.

Mr. Bell

We all know my hon. Friend's historical ability, but I am not talking about being a lawyer. We are discussing the new Clause, which deals with the receipt of Crown briefs. Crown briefs were not contracts of service, nor did the acceptance of them constitute the holding of office of any kind. Therefore, they have never disqualified.

The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) is suggesting that at a time when we have decided, or will shortly decide, that all commercial contracts will not disqualify, we shall decide that one particular kind of service, and not a regular service but an occasional one, should disqualify. Even if this Committee were suddenly to think that professional service should disqualify when commercial contracts do not, it would be rather strange just to pick on barristers.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has referred to solicitors and doctors. The figure in the proposed new Clause is £100. I do not know, but I should be very surprised if there were not right hon. and hon. Members of the House of Commons in receipt of something more like £2,000 in respect of medical services payable from public funds under the National Health Service.

Mr. E. G. Willis (Edinburgh, East)

But surely that is not directly under the patronage of the Minister of Health.

Mr. Bell

The hon. Member will appreciate that the Health Service is quite different from the other nationalised organisations. It is directly under the Crown and the Minister has direct control, unlike the National Coal Board or British Railways. Therefore, the analogy is correct.

I am sure that hon. Members would not think it reasonable that a practitioner who was a Member of the House of Commons should be debarred from serving in the National Health Service, or that a solicitor or surveyor should be in this absurd danger that he might find that in some way he had acted for the Crown and had received a fee exceeding £100, which he might easily do.

Mr. Lindgren

Doctors have come into the House of Commons and, because they could not carry on their practices and be Members, have given up their practices. I can think of three such cases.

Mr. Bell

The hon. Member seems to have left the realm of principle and to be arguing particular cases. I should have thought it unreasonable to hon. Members that Members should be debarred by law from participating in the National Health Service because they have come into the House of Commons. I believe that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee are participating in the Health Service at the present time, some possibly on a consultant basis.

It would be quite illogical to pick out the Bar and to leave out the others, but it is surely totally illogical to put in a profession at all when we have decided in principle and are about to decide in detail in Committee on Clause 9 that commercial contracts should go out.

The Attorney-General

We have passed Clause 9.

Mr. Bell

That strengthens my argument immensely, because the Committee apparently has already decided to order Clause 9 to stand part of the Bill and, therefore, it would be rather absurd to add the new Clause to the Bill. When this matter was discussed in the Select Committee we had a Division on it and only one right hon. Member voted in favour of the change. It was the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). All the other members of the Committee, from both sides of the House of Commons, voted against it.

Mr. Ede (South Shields)

What does that prove?

Mr. Wigg

In an effort to be fair, I left out of the argument what the Select Committee decided or did not decide to do, but if the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. R. Bell) persists in bringing against me the fact that the Select Committee took a certain decision, surely, in all fairness, he must tell us how many lawyers were members of the Select Committee.

Mr. Bell

I think that the hon. Member for Dudley would not have left out reference to what happened in the Select Committee if it had been in his favour.

Mr. Wigg

On the contrary.

Mr. Bell

I could not say off-hand how many members of the Select Committee were lawyers, but at least one right hon. Member opposite, who is not a lawyer, voted against the hon. Member for Dudley on this point.

The Select Committee sets out very clearly in paragraph 6 the argument against the proposal. It says: As the law stands, and as the Bill committed to Your Committee was drafted, it would be possible for a member with large contracting interests to erect a huge block of Government offices without thereby incurring disqualification, while another member, perhaps supplying for the same offices furniture worth little more than a hundred pounds, would disqualify himself. That is, under the law at present. To supply goods in excess of £100 disqualifies, and the hon. Member for Dudley, by means of the new Clause, is trying to put the Bar in exactly the same position as the tradesmen whom we are now, by means of the Bill, trying to leave out.

The Select Committee added: It seemed clear to Your Committee that the law should not be left in its present state, and they were faced with deciding either for bare repeal or a new clause, or new clauses, covering all sorts of contractual relations between Government and government departments on the one hand and on the other commercial, trade and professional organisations in which a member might, directly or indirectly as director, shareholder or otherwise, happen to participate or, in the further alternative, to provide for suitable publicity to be given to any Government contracts or arrangements, including Crown briefs, which might otherwise become, or be thought to be, the means of secret patronage or of undue influence by the Government of the day on members of the House of Commons. Faced with the extreme difficulty of drafting satisfactory new clauses to cover all such possibilities, and having regard particularly to the evidence of the Clerk of the House that he had neither evidence nor knowledge of any corruption affecting members in connection with Government contracts for the past hundred years, Your Committee considered it unnecessary to go beyond the repeal of the existing law. If that is not merely the recommendation of the Select Committee, but the effect of the Bill which the House passed on Second Reading and consideration of which, except for proposed new Clauses, we have completed in Committee, then, apart from any other argument such as that put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East, which I thought very powerful on the desirability of allowing members of the Bar to be Members of the House, the new Clause is already inconsistent with what the House of Commons has decided to do.

The House has decided to throw membership of the House open to anyone who has not an office incompatible with such membership, either for physical reasons or because he would be manifestly susceptible to pressure from the Executive. If that is the course that the Committee has decided upon, it would be absurd to accept the proposed new Clause.

Mr. E. Fletcher

Unlike the hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. R. Bell) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas), I have no personal interest in this matter. As the Committee knows, I am not a barrister. I am a humble solicitor, a member of the junior branch of the legal profession, and therefore at no time am I in danger of being offered a Crown brief.

The Committee is indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) for having raised this matter. We have had a most interesting speech from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East, who has made a suggestion for an inquiry, which I cordially endorse. It is true that this particular suggestion was fully ventilated in the Select Committee and I, having been a member of it, like the hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire, South, had the occasion and the duty to consider the matter carefully. Having done so, I was, as was pointed out, one of the majority of eleven who decided on the merits against the Clause, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) being in a minority of one.

However, I do not think the matter can be left there. As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, although I had not been convinced in the discussions which took place in the Select Committee, I was prepared to come here this afternoon with an open mind, and be convinced by what arguments he wanted to address to this Committee. My hon. Friend will forgive me for saying that I feel that, contrary to his usual performances, he did not do himself full justice on this occasion. I do not think he made the most of the case that could be made out. The Select Committee had to consider the whole of the grounds on which disqualification should rest.

As was pointed out in the memoranda—which are now printed in the Appendix—that the Committee received from the Attorney-General and from the Clerk of the House, the real test of disqualification is incompatibility. Incompatibility may arise in one of two ways. It may arise because the mere nature of the office is incompatible with membership of the House of Commons. The classic instance of that is provided by civil servants or judges, since obviously their functions disqualify them. Another ground of incompatibility, which the hon. Member merely touched upon, was that there might be a physical cause of incompatibility; for example, ambassadors and other people whose very occupation requires them to live abroad or to spend a great deal of time abroad, or away from London, would therefore find themselves in a position which was incompatible with their presence in the House.

One way in which the hon. Member for Dudley might present his case, if I may respectfully suggest it to him, is as follows. There is a real sense of grievance in the House of Commons that a large number of hon. Members, with no other source of income, have to man Standing Committees two or three times a week. At the same time there are not only members of the Bar, but members of other professions, including my own, who are able to supplement their Parliamentary salaries by earning money outside; and as long as Crown briefs continue, it will be part of the duty of barristers to attend court during the daytime, thereby rendering themselves unable to attend Standing Committees.

That is a real grievance, and I have every sympathy with it, but the remedy for that state of affairs is not to disqualify barristers who receive Crown briefs, but for the Government to pay all Members of Parliament adequate Parliamentary salaries. That is what we on these benches have been pressing for a long time past, and if this debate has no other result, I hope it will give a sense of urgency to that demand which has been repeatedly pressed.

4.45 p.m.

Now I turn to another matter. I am not sure how far the hon. Member for Dudley did so, but it could be urged that the mere existence of this patronage in the hands of the Attorney-General is in itself incompatible with membership of the House because it could be said that it exposes Members of Parliament to pressure, to influence; that it provides them with financial rewards which must tend to affect their attitude in this House. I do not think that argument was pressed; nor do I think the Attorney-General answered it. He gave some figures and the information was useful because the public are entitled to know the extent of this patronage. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that since his appointment to the office he had been responsible for 2,598 nominations, of which forty-five had gone to fifteen different Members of Parliament.

I ask myself, why only fifteen? Why not many more? If there is the possibility of influence, if there is the possibility of patronage, it applies not only to those who have received Crown briefs but to those who have not. It applies also to those who live in hopes of them, because every hon. Member who is a member of the Bar and is eligible for a Crown brief is equally affected by the possibility of patronage, whether he receives one or not. Therefore, the problem is not dismissed by saying that only forty-five Members of Parliament have received Crown briefs.

Mr. Bell

Fifteen.

Mr. Fletcher

I am much obliged for the correction; only fifteen Members of Parliament have received Crown briefs. What about all the others? Are they not deserving of consideration? Have any of them refused Crown briefs?

Mr. Peter Rawlinson (Epsom)

Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that many hon. Members of this House are lawyers only by qualification, and that there are not nearly as many as is supposed who are practising barristers?

Mr. Fletcher

I am aware of that. I do not want to give any secrets away. It does not affect my decision on how I shall vote on this Clause. It must be remembered, however, that as long as this patronage exists, the Attorney-General is answerable in the House of Commons for how he exercises it. There may or may not have been complaints in recent years about how it is exercised. I have heard criticisms from time to time, not made by Members of Parliament but by people outside the House, because the exercise of any patronage is naturally a legitimate subject for criticism.

I would remind the Committee that if it is said that the power of the Attorney-General to give Crown briefs to a selected number of Members of Parliament is a kind of patronage which may influence their votes, and it might, then that is something we should examine. We must examine it, however, in the context of the whole of the patronage to which Members of Parliament may be exposed.

I will consider first those on the opposite benches and then those on this side of the Committee. It seems to me that Members on the Government Benches, whether barristers or not, are continually exposed to the possibility of patronage, because they always stand, at the risk of being offered or not offered some Ministerial appointment. After all, there are sixty or seventy Ministers of the Crown. There are a large number of ex-Ministers, some of whom are adorning the benches opposite at present, and nearly all the remainder are potential Ministers, all hoping one day or another to receive Government patronage.

Placed against that background, it seems to me that the patronage to which a member of the Bar who is a Government supporter is exposed is minimal. In fact, experience shows that a barrister who is a Government supporter is far more likely to receive Ministerial office than judicial preferment. There are, for example, the Foreign Secretary, the Minister of Education, the First Lord of the Admiralty, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Minister of Pensions. Other names will occur to other hon. Members. No one has ever suggested that the possibility of Minsteral preferment and advancement is a reason for excluding them from this House. Therefore, why should the possibility of giving them a Crown brief be a reason?

I now turn to hon. Members on this side. I should like to know what the Attorney-General thinks. I am not sure whether it is deliberate or whether it is accidental that the distribution of these Crown briefs among members of the Bar on both sides of the House appears to have some relation to the proportion of Members on the two sides. I should have thought that was accidental because —and here the Attorney-General will correct me if I am wrong——

The Attorney-General

The hon. Gentleman heard me say that the question of membership of a political party had nothing to do with it or, indeed, with membership of the House of Commons, and I should have thought he would have accepted that.

Mr. Fletcher

That was what I expected the Attorney-General to say.

The Attorney-General

I have said it.

Mr. Fletcher

I am very glad to have given the Attorney-General an opportunity of repeating it and putting it beyond dispute. This leads me to my further point. Surely it cannot be suggested—and here I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley will help me—that in so far as the Attorney-General of the day distributes Crown briefs to Members of the Opposition they are influenced in any way whatever by the Crown briefs they receive or do not receive. I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley has suggested that any Member on these benches during the tenure of office of the Attorney-General has, by reason of receiving Crown briefs, been any less likely to vote against the Government than he would otherwise have been.

May I take one glaring example which, I think, is a classical illustration of this? In the days when my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Helens (Sir H. Shawcross) was Attorney-General, he had the opportunity of disposing of what was, I suppose, the most remunerative Crown briefs that had been distributed for a very long time. I refer to the Nuremberg trials of war criminals. The fees on those briefs have been published. I do not know why the Attorney-General need be reticent about giving the figures of other Crown briefs if he is pressed for them. They were given by his predecessor and they are all in HANSARD. The total fees paid——

The Attorney-General

I am afraid the hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening. I have no information about what fees are paid. It is a very different thing to secure information about what fees are paid in a particular case, such as in the Nuremberg case, and those paid generally. I am never informed, nor is my Department, what fees are paid to counsel. I said that before.

Mr. Fletcher

I heard that, but with great respect I could not accept it. I believe that if the Attorney-General wanted to inform himself of the fees that are paid, and of the fees marked on any brief for which he is responsible for nomination, he would not have the slightest difficulty in obtaining that information. He has only to ask for it and he can compel its production. Therefore, if my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley or anyone else wants this information he is entitled to have it.

As I have said, I do not think that the Attorney-General need be reticent about it. In the case of his predecessor there was no reticence. The figures are in HANSARD. The total fees paid to members of the Bar attending Nuremberg were £52,396. The largest or second largest fee was paid to Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, as he then was, the present Lord Chancellor, who was one of the most distinguished opponents of the Labour Government of the day. His fees, I believe, were either £14,000 or £24,000. [An HON. MEMBER: "£24,000."] The Attorney-General of the day delivered briefs to the value of £24,000 to the present Lord Chancellor, who was then Sir David Maxwell Fyfe and sitting on the Opposition Front Bench. Could it possibly be argued that the exercise of patronage by the Attorney-General of the day to his foremost political opponent diminished in any degree the vehemence with which Sir David Maxwell Fyfe con- tinuously opposed the policy of the Labour Government?

Mr. Wigg

I tried to be fair in my argument. I was aware of these facts, but I did not use them. I did not use them because there is an obvious reply to the question. There is an argument which can be used but which I refrained from using and which is now forced out of me. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Helens (Sir H. Shawcross) gave those briefs to Sir David Maxwell Fyfe not for favours at present but for favours to come so that——

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. F. Blackburn)

I do not think that the hon. Member should cast a reflection upon another hon. Member of this House.

Mr. Wigg

It would perhaps be as well. Mr. Blackburn, before I earn the rebuke of the Chair, that I should be guilty of the charge made against me. I did not make a reflection and I was very careful to say that I refrained from using that argument. But if it is put to me directly, and it has been put to me directly, what is my answer? Then surely, in all fairness, I have to put the consideration which influenced me, not in putting the argument, but in refraining from doing so. If it can be argued and I am asked directly whether the granting of these briefs exempts the charge of patronage, I can fairly say that the opposite conclusion can in fact be drawn.

Mr. Fletcher

I do not follow my hon. Friend's argument. I was trying to argue that from facts, which ought to be in the minds of the Committee, the distribution of this patronage could not possibly, and did not, affect the political opinions or activities of political opponents.

Mr. Wigg

I am not making, nor have I made, any aspersion on an hon. Member of this House who is now a Member or has been a Member. What I am answering is whether in fact the argument can be used, and clearly it can.

Mr. Fletcher

My hon. Friend has made his point. In my view, it is quite proper that these facts should be known and that the Committee should know that all these considerations were in the minds of the Select Committee in coming to the practically unanimous decision—not entirely unanimous, but by an overwhelming majority—to reject the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley.

Mr. Wigg

I want to make it absolutely clear that in the course of the questions which I put to the Attorney-General, and in the course of my arguments today and on previous occasions, I have gone out of my way to be careful not to get involved in just the considerations which my hon. Friend has forced upon the Committee.

Mr. Fletcher

My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley says that I have forced these considerations on the Committee. I think that it is much better, in order that the Committee may come to a decision about these matters, that it should have the facts, because without all the facts no one can come to the best conclusion. I have mentioned them as being relevant to the decision to which the Committee ought to come. In my view, these facts show that the existence of this patronage for which the Attorney-General is answerable in this House cannot be said at any time within living memory to have influenced the political view or the political criticism or expression of opinion of any Member on either side of the House.

There is a further matter which I think ought to be urged in opposition to the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, and it is this. As long as there are members of the Bar in this House—and I hope there always will be—then it seems to me that, apart from the interests of Parliament, it is in the interests of the administration of justice, which is just as important as the efficient conduct of our Parliamentary life, that if the Attorney-General of the day thinks that for the better conduct of some criminal case or civil case in the courts a nomination should be made to a member of the Bar who is also a Member of this House, he should make that nomination. It would be contrary to the interests of justice to fetter the hands of the Attorney-General in this way by imposing this disqualification.

I thought it necessary, in view of the attitude of a number of my hon. Friends, to give the reasons for which I came to this conclusion in the Select Committee and for which I remain of the same opinion today.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Ede

As the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. R. Bell) pointed out, when this matter was before the Select Committee I was the one Member to vote in favour of the Clause of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). I am never afraid of being in a minority of one, because it is the safest position to be in. You are responsible for nobody else but yourself. As soon as a single person joins you, you have to have regard to how far you may be responsible for having exerted undue influence on him. I say quite frankly that if the matter were before the Select Committee again this afternoon, I should move my hon. Friend's Clause and should vote for it.

We discovered in the course of the Committee's deliberations that a man who accepted some office for which no fees were paid at all and which even involved him in considerable expense became disqualified from being a Member of this House, although it could not be said that holding the office in the slightest degree influenced his conduct in Parliament. Everybody knows that since 1945 we have had a succession of the most trivial cases in which it has been held that Members on both sides of the House were disqualified. Consider the case of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Sir R. Jennings) who, out of a good heart, audited the accounts of the local British Legion Club. To do that he had to have his name inserted on a list. He received no fee and, in fact, he did not do the work. A salaried servant of his firm did the work. Nevertheless, he was disqualified.

It has been held against my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley in dealing with anomalies which have existed that the House has already struck the Clause out of the Bill which raised some doubt about the position of contract.

Mr. R. Bell

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman did not mean to say "struck the Clause out of the Bill". It should be "struck the provision out of the law".

Mr. Ede

There was some argument between the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South, and when two lawyers disagree——

The Attorney-General

I think that in this connection the right hon, Gentleman was right. The original Bill which came before the Committee contained the Clause relating to contract. The Select Committee, on considering the matter, struck it out. If I may arbitrate in this dispute, I would give the verdict to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Ede

The right hon. and learned Gentleman also gives it in favour of himself. Meticulous lawyers might think the judgment was suspect, but I am prepared to leave it at that.

Next, there was the position of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans) who supplied some stationery to the Home Office when I was Home Secretary. This was just before he was a Member, but this small series of transactions continued afterwards. Nobody suggested that there was any bad faith on his part, but he was disqualified. But let us consider the position of a man who is a Member of the House and an architect and who is asked to act as architect on the erection of some large Government building. He would have professional fees paid in respect of it, but he would not be disqualified. That is the position with regard to the professions generally.

I have been quite consistent on this matter. As will be seen from page 1xx of the Report of the Select Committee, I moved an Amendment to add to the Clause then under discussion certain words—after alluding to the high reputation at home and abroad of the House of Commons for disinterestedness and incorruptibility… the words continued: …your Committee recommend that the immediate attention of the House should be given to the framing of legislation to deal, (in the light of modern commercial, trade and professional conditions and practices), with the situation thus created. I myself do not think it right that we should now be in the position in which a person having a contract with the Government should be entitled to sit in the House. He could not sit on any local authority in the country if he were in that position. Of course, the creation of the joint stock companies has created a position which makes it very difficult indeed to arrive at any logical conclusion, unless the House is prepared to examine this question a great deal further, and I hope it will decide to do so.

Everyone who has spoken so far in this debate, except my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, is a lawyer of one branch or other of the profession, and the way in which the lawyers' minds are capable of producing the argument for the moment in spite of all that has been said before is a constant source of wonder to me. The right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) and myself were very keen on a very different position being taken up. We said, "Do not have a list of offices which disqualify a man from being a Member of the House of Commons, but disqualify from holding the offices any man who becomes a Member of Parliament holding them."

What was the lawyers' argument on that in Committee? They said, "You might have a judge of the High Court who inadvertently was elected a Member of Parliament. He went through all the processes of election; he was nominated, he addressed meetings and he was elected. He served in the House for some time. Then it was suddenly discovered that he was a judge. We therefore cannot have this revolutionary proposal of the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery and the right hon. and unlearned Member for South Shields. This man might even have sentenced somebody to be hanged, and a couple of years afterwards it might be discovered that he was simultaneously a judge and a Member of Parliament. What could you do about the poor fellow who had been hanged on his sentence?"

The Committee must examine very carefully the way in which, in future, what the Attorney-General called the quasi-contractual nature of certain relationships between individual Members of Parliament and Government Departments is dealt with. In reply to such people as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) I would say that I would carry this arrangement further and include all professions. In this matter we are adopting a lower standard for the House of Commons than we do for any local authority. A man cannot draw a fee in respect of work he does for a local authority as long as he is a member of it; in fact, in the Local Government Act of 1933 the House went so far as to say that a man must cease to be a member of a local authority for a year before he could draw a fee or wage in respect of any work he did for it.

This House should be at least as careful of its own Members as it is of the members of local authorities. I hope that the Committee will realise that what, in the past, was regarded as a safeguard in the matter of contracts has now completely disappeared, and that it will be the duty of the House in the not too distant future to have regard to that fact on the general issue, and not merely upon the particular issue with which we are dealing here.

If I were to adopt the argument of the lawyers I should be quite entitled to say that it is not what may happen today but what may happen in the future with which we must be concerned. The Attorney-General was quite frank with the Select Committee. He gave figures in April last year with regard to the position, and as far as I can follow from the figures which he then gave there have been two nominations in the months that have intervened. He said that there were thirteen, and now there are fifteen. There is no dispute between the right hon. and learned Gentleman and myself about this matter.

While he was in office one would expect that briefs should be shared in the way mentioned. I gather that not very many of these briefs represent any very large sums. There may be one or two in tax cases, where the hearing was protracted and the subject difficult——

The Attorney-General

And the case perhaps went through several courts.

Mr. Ede

Yes—that is one way of protracting a case. When I was presiding on the appeal committee of a quarter sessions only a week or two ago my colleagues and I declared as a nullity a certain decision reached by a bench below. The member of the Bar who had argued against it being a nullity thanked me after lunch for the decision that we had come to because, he said, "It means that I shall get another brief out of the same case."

With regard to the case that my hon. Friend adduced, I think it was a pity that any individual names should have been adduced, so injecting an amount of heat into the debate which might well have been avoided. The figures that occurred in that case have rarely been equalled in this sort of case in recent years. We are not going back to days of Lord Halsbury; we are dealing with the modern practice.

5.15 p.m.

There is no doubt that occasionally in the past this opportunity has been abused. It may have been in the distant past, but it has happened. Adopting the argument about the judge who might have been inadvertently elected a Member of Parliament without anybody finding it out, I should have thought that it would be better to preclude the possibility of it happening. I regard as one of the chief dangers of democracy the suggestion which is rampant in America and is occasionally heard here, that nobody is in public life for the good of his health; he is in it for the takings that can be made. One occasionally hears it from people who have no weight at all in this country, who just cannot believe that anybody ever does anything unless there is a considerable profit attached to it.

I argued the same way with regard to another Amendment. Members of Parliament are entitled to be protected from that sort of insinuation. Therefore, speaking in rather more numerous company than I did in Committee, I want to say that I shall vote for the new Clause. I am authorised by those who settle policy to say that they recommend my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote for it.

Mr. Usborne

The matter we have been discussing is of intense importance and raises many issues. I would have wished to speak at great length upon it, but I will try to cut my remarks to the minimum. I regret that I have been called so late in the day, because there was one small question upon which I wanted to concentrate and which it would have been easier to have deployed had I had the luck to speak almost immediately after the Attorney-General.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has done the Committee a great service in raising this issue, although I believe that the case against the new Clause is rather strong. He worried the Attorney-General while he was speaking, and at one point the Attorney-General rose and said he was sorry that he had not made himself clear. The fact is that he should have been sorry because he did make himself clear. He made it abundantly clear to me, at any rate, that he was exerting a form of patronage because, in his office, as a lawyer himself he was claiming the right to appoint all the other lawyers to work for all the other Ministries, and he seemed to think that that was perfectly sound.

My objection to patronage arises when it is concentrated. I admit that it happens in all walks of life and in all ways, but the more it is spread out the less dangerous and harmful it is. I therefore ask the Committee to consider carefully the possibility that it might be better if the various Departments and Government Ministries were allowed to choose their own counsel, even if they chose their favourites—because in that context the word "favourites" would mean those who would do the best jobs for them. On the other hand, the Attorney-General, as a senior member of his union, is more concerned in seeing that all the lawyers get a fair crack of the whip. I want to see that Government Departments get good service for the fees they pay.

If it could be logically argued that the Attorney-General, being head of a profession, should have a monopoly in the appointment of members of that profession, why should it not be equally valid to say that if the Minister of Supply were the head of the engineering section he should always appoint the consulting engineers for any Government Department which wanted an advisory opinion from a qualified engineer? The very suggestion is too absurd to contemplate, but it is exactly analogous.

I think there would be a lot to be said for an arrangement whereby more than one person had the responsibility for handing out the briefs for the ten or twenty Departments—I do not know how many different Ministries and Departments there are—which have to obtain the services of qualified lawyers. I think it would be an improvement, and if this could be secured and nothing else, I still think that this would have been a very

valuable debate. I think it would be far better if the learned Attorney-General stopped hogging this particular patronage and allowed it to be more widely spread.

Mr. Jack Jones (Rotherham)

I speak for the first time on this Bill, and probably the lawyers in the Committee will ask what my qualifications are for speaking now.

I was one of the very few laymen who came to this House in 1945 to be disqualified. It was found by the late Mr. Ernest Bevin, that very respected person, when he was Minister of Labour, that lawyers could not do the job of maintaining industrial peace, and it was decided that I should take the place of an eminent lawyer on an appeals tribunal in Manchester. The eminent lawyer knew quite a lot, but he did not understand human beings or workshop practice. When I came to this House, having lost money by going to the tribunal from a highly paid job, I was disqualified, but if the provisions of this Clause had been in operation and Mr. Bevin had said to me, "If you earn £100 on this job, you do not come to Parliament," he could have had his job.

It is because I believe in preventing any good man who may be selected by future Labour Party Ministers—and it will not be so long before they arrive—from being disqualified from sitting in the House and other people, with political convictions—and who are called upon in the middle of a war to keep the peace in industry because they know something about industry—from running the risk of disqualification, that I shall support the new Clause.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 159, Noes 218.

Division No. 77.] AYES [5.22 p.m.
Ainsley, J. W. Brockway, A. F. Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Albu, A. H. Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Bacon, Miss Alice Burke, W. A. Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Balfour, A. Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Cullen, Mrs. A.
Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.) Callaghan, L. J. Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Benson, G. Carmichael, J. Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Blyton, W. R. Champion, A. J. Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G. Chapman, W. D. Davies, Harold (Leek)
Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.) Chetwynd, G. R. Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Bowles, F. G. Clunie, J. Dodds, N. N.
Boyd, T. C. Coldrick, W. Donnelly, D. L.
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch) King, Dr. H. M. Reid, William
Dye, S. Lawson, G. M. Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) Lever, Harold (Cheetham) Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft) Lewis, Arthur Ross, William
Forman, J. C. Lindgren, G. S. Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N. Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Short, E. W.
George, Lady Megan Lloyd MacColl, J. E. Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Gibson, C. W. McGovern, J. Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)
Greenwood, Anthony MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) Sorensen, R. W.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R. Mann, Mrs. Jean Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Grey, C. F. Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A. Sparks, J. A.
Hamilton, W. W. Mason, Roy Steele, T.
Hannan, W. Mellish, R. J. Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.) Mitchison, G. R. Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)
Hastings, S. Monslow, W. Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Hayman, F. H. Moody, A. S. Sylvester, G. O.
Healey, Denis Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.) Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis) Morrison, Rt.Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.) Thornton, E.
Herbison, Miss M. Mort, D. L. Timmons, J.
Hobson, C. R. Moss, R. Viant, S. P.
Holman, P. Moyle, A. Warbey, W. N.
Holmes, Horace Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon) Watkins, T. E.
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr) Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.) Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Hoy, J. H. Oliver, G. H. West, D. G.
Hubbard, T. F. Oram, A. E. Wheeldon, W. E.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) Orbach, M. White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Oswald, T. White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Owen, W.J. Wigg, George
Hunter, A. E. Padley, W. E. Wilkins, W. A.
Hynd, H. (Accrington) Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.) Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) Pargiter, G. A. Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford) Parkin, B. T. Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. Paton, John Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)
Jeger, George (Goole) Pearson, A. Winterbottom, Richard
Johnson, Howard (Rugby) Pentland, N. Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield) Popplewell, E. Yates, V. (Ladywood)
Jones, David (The Hartlepools) Price, J. T. (Westhoughton) Younger, Rt. Hon. K.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham) Prootor, W. T. Zilliacus, K.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Rankin, John
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) Redhead, E. C. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Reeves, J. Mr. Rogers and Mr. John Taylor.
NOES
Agnew, Sir Peter Chichester-Clark, R. Grimond, J.
Aitken, W. T. Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.) Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.) Cole, Norman Grosvenor, L.-Col. R. G.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Cooper-Key, E. M. Gurden, Harold
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.) Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton) Corfield, Capt. F. V. Harris, Reader (Heston)
Anstruther-Gray, Major sir William Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Arbuthnot, John Crouch, R. F. Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Armstrong, C. W. Crowder, Sir John (Finchley) Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)
Ashton, H. Cunningham, Knox Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Atkins, H. E. Currie, G. B. H. Hay, John
Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M. Dance, J. C. G. Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Baldwin, A. E. Davidson, Viscountess Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Balniel, Lord Davies, Rt-Hon. Clement (Montgomery) Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Barber, Anthony D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Barlow, Sir John Dodds-Parker, A. D. Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Barter, John Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA. Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Baxter, Sir Beverley Doughty, C. J. A. Holland-Martin, C. J.
Beamish, Maj. Tufton du Cann, E. D. L. Holt, A. F.
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.) Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond) Hope, Lord John
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.) Duncan, Capt J. A. L. Hornby, R. P.
Bidgood, J. C. Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West) Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn Howard, John (Test)
Bishop, F. P. Farey-Jones, F. W. Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Body, R. F. Finlay, Graeme Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Bossom, Sir Alfred Fletcher, Eric Hurd, A. R.
Boyle, Sir Edward Fletcher-Cooke, C. Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)
Braine, B. R. Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale) Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.) Garner-Evans, E. H. Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H. Godber, J. B. Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry Gomme-Dunoan, Col. Sir Alan Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)
Brooman-White, R. C. Cough, C. F. H. Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton) Gower, H. R. Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E. Graham, Sir Fergus Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Burden, F. F. A. Grant, W. (Woodside) Keegan, D.
Campbell, Sir David Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich) Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Cary, Sir Robert Green, A. Kerr, H. W.
Channon, Sir Henry Gresham Cooke, R. Kimball, M.
Lancaster, Col. C. G. Ormsby-Core, Rt. Hon. W. D. Stevens, Geoffrey
Langford-Holt, J. A. Orr, Capt. L. P. S. Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Leavey, J. A. Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.) Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Osborne, C. Stewart, Sir James Henderson (Fife, E.)
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield) Page, R. G. Storey, S.
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.) Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale) Studholme, Sir Henry
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull) Parker, J. Summers, Sir Spencer
Linstead, Sir H. N. Partridge, E. Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.) Peyton, J. W. W. Temple, John M.
Longden, Gilbert Pickthorn, K. W. M. Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W. Pike, Miss Mervyn Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.) Pilkington, Capt. R. A. Thompson, Lt. Cdr, R. (Croydon, S.)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Pitman, I. J. Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Macdonald, Sir Peter Pott, H. P. Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway) Powell, J. Enoch Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty) Price, David (Eastleigh) Tweedsmuir, Lady
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) price, Henry (Lewisham, W.) Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Maddan, Martin Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L. vane, W. M. F.
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle) Ramsden, J. E. Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R. Rawlinson, Peter Vickers, Miss Joan
Marlowe, A. A. H. Redmayne, M. Wade, D. W.
Maude, Angus Renton, D. L. M. Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Maudling, Rt. Hon. R. Rippon, A. G. F. Wall, Major Patrick
Mawby, R. L. Robertson, Sir David Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouh)
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R. Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.) Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh Roper, Sir Harold Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold
Morrison, John (Salisbury) Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard Whitelaw, W.S.I. (Penrith & Border)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles Scott-Miller, Cmdr. H. Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Nairn, D. L. S. Sharples, R. C. Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Neave, Airey Shepherd, William Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Nicholls, Harmar Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.) Wood, Hon. R.
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch) Smithers, Peter (Winchester) Woollam, John Victor
Nugent, C. R. H. Spearman, Sir Alexander
Oakshott, H. D. Speir, R. M. TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.) Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.) Mr. Wills and Mr. Bryan.