HC Deb 02 February 1982 vol 17 cc257-79

2.3 am

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Barney Hayhoe)

I beg to move,

That Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 be amended as follows:-

Amendments of Part I

  1. 1.—(1) In the entry "Stipendiary Magistrate within the meaning of the Justices of the Peace Act 1949" for the words "the Justices of the Peace Act 1949" there shall be substituted the words "the Justices of the Peace Act 1979".
  2. 2.In the entry beginning "Resident Magistrate" the words "the Summary Jurisdiction and Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 1935 or" shall be omitted.
  3. 3.For the entry "Chief or other National Insurance
Commissioner" there shall be substituted the following entry— Chief or other Social Security Commissioner (excluding a person appointed in pursuance of section 13(5) of the Social Security Act 1980).".
  1. 4.For the entry "Chief or other National Insurance Commissioner for Northern Ireland" there shall be substituted the following entry—
Chief or other Social Security Commissioner for Northern Ireland (excluding a person appointed in pursuance of section 13(5) of the Social Security Act 1980).". Amendments of Part II
  • 2. There shall be inserted at the appropriate places—
  • "The Attendance Allowance Board for Northern Ireland. The Commission for Local Authority Accounts in Scotland.
  • The Civil Service Appeal Board.
  • The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.
  • The Equal Opportunities Commission for Northern Ireland.
  • The Health and Safety Agency for Northern Ireland. The Labour Relations Agency.
  • The Livestock Marketing Commission for Northern Ireland.
  • The Mental Health Review Tribunal for Northern Ireland. The National Consumer Council.
  • The Northern Ireland Civil Service Appeal Board. The Northern Ireland Economic Council.
  • The Northern Ireland Fishery Harbour Authority. The Northern Ireland Housing Executive.
  • The Northern Ireland Tourist Board.
  • The Parole Board for Scotland constituted under section 59 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967.
  • The Planning Appeals Commission established under Article 88 of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1972.
  • The Tribunal established under the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act 1958.
  • The Water Appeals Commission for Northern Ireland."
  • 3. The following entries shall be omitted—
  • "The Channel Tunnel Planning Council.
  • The Employment Service Agency.
  • The Location of Offices Bureau.
  • The Metrication Board.
  • The Ministry of Defence (Army Department) Teachers Selection Board.
  • The National Health Service Staff Commission.
  • A Panel of Chairmen of Re-instatement Committees constituted under section 41 of the National Service Act 1948.
  • The Property Commission for Scotland established under section 224 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.
  • The Staff Commission established under section 85(5) of the London Government Act 1963.
  • The Staff Commission for England established under section 257 of the Local Government Act 1972.
  • The Staff Commission for Scotland established under section 218 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.
    • 258
  • The Staff Commission for Wales established under section 258 of the Local Government Act 1972.
  • The Training Services Agency.
  • The Water Resources Board.
  • The Welsh National Health Service Staff Commission.".
  • 4.In the entry beginning "An Independent Schools Tribunal" for the words "Schedule 7 to the Education (Scotland) Act 1962" there shall be substituted the words "Schedule 2 to the Education (Scotland) Act 1980".
  • Amendments of Part III
  • 5.There shall be inserted at the appropriate places—
  • "Chairman of the British Overseas Trade Board. Chairman of the Dental Committee of the Northern Ireland
  • Central Services Agency for the Health and Social Services.
  • Chairman of the Domestic Coal Consumer Council. Chairman of the Electricity Consumer Council. Chairman of Enterprise Ulster.
  • Chairman of the Management Committee of the Common Services Agency for the Scottish Health Service.
  • Chairman of the Manpower Services Committee for Scotland.
  • Chairman of the Manpower Services Committee for Wales.
  • Chairman of the Police Authority for Northern Ireland. Chairman of the Prescription Pricing Agency.
  • Chairman of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights constituted under section 20 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973.
  • Chairman of the Women's Royal Voluntary Service. Director of the British Aerospace Public Limited Company appointed subject to the approval of a Minister or government department.
  • Director of British Nuclear Fuels Limited.
  • Director of Harland and Wolff Limited.
  • Director of International Military Services Limited. Director of the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company.
  • Director of Short Brothers Limited.
  • Governor or Administrator of a dependent territory within the meaning of section 50(1) of the British Nationality Act 1981.
  • Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales.
  • Her Majesty's Deputy Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales.
  • Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons for Scotland. Her Majesty's Deputy Chief Inspector of Prisons for Scotland.
  • Lay observer appointed under Article 42 of the Solicitors (Northern Ireland) Order 1976.
  • Levy Exemption Referee for the purposes of the Industrial Training Act 1982.
  • Member of the Local Enterprise Development Unit. Member of a panel of persons who may be appointed to consider representations in accordance with section3(4)(b) of the Employment Agencies Act 1973. Member of the Board of the Royal Ordnance Factories. Member of a panel of persons who may be appointed to serve on a Vaccine Damage Tribunal.
  • Person appointed to hear and decide appeals under the Trade Marks Act 1938.
  • President, or member of a panel of chairmen, of industrial tribunals established under section 13 of the Industrial Training Act (Northern Ireland) 1964.
  • Returning Officer under section 17(2) of the Representation of the People Act 1949 and any Deputy Returning Officer appointed by him.".
  • 6.The following entries shall be omitted—
  • "Accountant of Court appointed under section 25 of the Administration of Justice (Scotland) Act 1933. Agent for Northern Ireland in Great Britain.
  • Chairman of a Regional Economic Planning Council. Clerk of the Crown and Peace in Northern Ireland.
  • Clerk of the Peace in Scotland.
  • Clerk or Assistant Clerk of Petty Sessions in Northern Ireland.
  • Director appointed at a salary of Industrial Advisers to the Blind Limited.
    • 259
  • Director appointed at a salary of the National Institute for Housecraft (Employment and Training) Limited.
  • Director of the Peterhead Bay (Management) Company Limited.
  • Member of the Council of the National Computing Centre appointed at a salary by a Minister of the Crown or government department.
  • Member of a panel of valuers appointed at an annual salary under section 4 of the Inland Revenue Regulation Act 1890.
  • Member of the Permanent Joint Hops Committee appointed by a Minister of the Crown or government department.
  • Officer or other member of the County Court Service within the meaning of the County Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1959.
  • Principal Clerk of Justiciary appointed under section 25 of the Administration of Justice (Scotland) Act 1933.
  • Procurator fiscal or procurator fiscal depute appointed under the Sheriff Courts and Legal Officers (Scotland) Act 1927.
  • Sheriff clerk or sheriff clerk depute.
  • Substitution Officer of the Royal Air Force.".
  1. 7.—(1) In the entry relating to Ambassador after the word "Ambassador" there shall be inserted the words "or Permanent Representative to an international organisation".
  2. (2)In the entry relating to Chairman of an Appeal Tribunal for the words "under Schedule 3 to the Supplementary Benefits etc. Act (Northern Ireland) 1966" there shall be substituted the words "Schedule 4 to the Supplementary Benefits (Northern Ireland) Order 1977"
  3. (3)For the entry beginning "Chairman of any of the Consultative Councils" there shall be substituted the following entries—
  4. "Chairman of any of the Consultative Councils established under section 7 of the Electricity Act 1947 for the Area Boards in England and Wales.
  5. Chairman of either of the Consultative Councils continued in existence by section 17(1) of the Electricity (Scotland) Act 1979 for the districts of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board and the South of Scotland Electricity Board.".
  6. (4)In the entry beginning "Chairman of a Local Tribunal" for the words "section 94(2)", in both places where they occur, there shall be substituted the words "section 97(2)".
  7. (5)For the entry beginning "Chief Electoral Office" there shall be substituted the following entry
  8. "Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland or any whole time officer appointed under section 14A(1) of the Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1962."
  9. (6)In the entry beginning "Distributor of Stamps" the words "Manchester or" shall be omitted.
  10. (7)In the entry beginning "Industrial Assurance Commissioner" for the words "Industrial Assurance Act (Northern Ireland) 1924" there shall be substituted the words "Industrial Assurance (Northern Ireland) Order 1979".
  11. (8)For the entry "Lay observer appointed under section 7 of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1976" there shall be substituted the following entry
  12. "Lay observer appointed under section 49 of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980.".
  13. (9)In the entry beginning "Member of an Agricultural Marketing Board appointed under section 2 of the Agricultural Marketing Act (Northern Ireland) 1933" the words from "section 2" to "1933 or" shall be omitted.
  14. (10)In the entry beginning "Member appointed by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food of the Agricultural Wages Board" for the words "the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food" there shall be substituted the words "a Minister of the Crown".
  15. (11)In the entry beginning "Member appointed by the Head of the Department or Minister of Agriculture for Northern Ireland" the words "or Minister" shall be omitted.
  16. (12)In the entry beginning "Member of a Wages Council or Central Co-ordinating Committee appointed under paragraph 1 (a) of Schedule 1 to the Wages Councils Act (Northern Ireland) 1945" the words from "or Member" to the end shall be omitted.
Amendment of Part IV
  1. 8. After the entry beginning "Her Majesty's Lord-Lieutenant or Lieutenant for the district of the city of Aberdeen" the following entry shall be inserted—
  2. "Her Majesty's Lord Lieutenant or Lieutenant for a county or county borough in Northern Ireland.
  3. Any constituency comprising the whole or part of the area for which he is appointed.".
  4. 9.—(1) In the entry beginning "Her Majesty's Lieutenant for Greater London" after the word "Majesty's" there shah be inserted the words "Lord-Lieutenant or".
  5. (2) In the entry beginning "Her Majesty's Lieutenant for a county" after the word "Majesty's" there shall be inserted the words "Lord-Lieutenant or".'.
The purpose of the motion is to seek the approval of the House to the amendment by Order in Council of schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975. This is in accordance with the procedure laid down in section 5(1) of the Act. This procedure has been followed on four previous occasions—in 1961, when the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Sir Edward Boyle, moved the motion; in 1963, when it was taken on the nod; in 1968, when Lord Lever, the then Financial Secretary, moved it; and in 1975, when it was taken on the nod. So the procedures that we are following tonight have been used on four previous occasions. They flow from the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957. The 1957 Act was passed following reports by two Select Committees of the House of Commons, and brought together various statutory provisions disqualifying from membership of the House of Commons the holders of certain public offices. That Act was consolidated in 1975.

Schedule 1 to the Act lists those offices whose holders are disqualified. It has been the normal practice for any legislation which establishes new offices to add them to the schedule of those disqualified and for legislation to wind up existing statutory offices to delete those offices from the schedule. The 1975 Act is reprinted from time to time, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, to incorporate the amendments which have been made to its schedule by other legislation. This maintains the intention behind the 1975 Act that a clear statement should be available of those public offices whose holders are disqualified. The last reprint was made on 1 January 1981.

In addition, from time to time it is necessary to bring the schedule up to date by Order in Council to add offices which have been created by administrative action and to amend or correct existing entries or to delete offices which are no longer appropriate. That is what we are trying to do in the motion.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Down, South)

The Minister said that the amendments arise in the case of offices created by administrative action. Is that comprehensive in view of the nature of many of the offices set out in the motion?

Mr. Hayhoe

I was trying to show only that the matters with which we are dealing have not been expressly dealt with by specific legislation, which would have been incorporated in the normal reprinting. It was not meant to be a wholly exclusive reason, although it is broadly the reason for a substantial number of the matters that will come forward. Over 100 amendments are before the House for consideration.

The 1975 Act does not state firm rules governing who should be disqualified, but there are general criteria by which the House has been guided over the years. One is that those who are appointed to offices by Ministers, or by the Crown on the advice of Ministers, should be precluded from membership of the House. In addition, some public offices involve duties that might make it impossible for their holders to fulfill their parliamentary duties satisfactorily. In others it is important that the occupants should seem to be politically neutral. I reiterate points made by my predecessors when moving similar motions in recent years.

Mr. Douglas Hogg (Grantham)

What is the process by which Ministers decide who should appear on the schedule that is to be placed before the House for its consideration?

Mr. Hayhoe

Ministers consider the matters in their areas of responsibility. The matters are brought together and consolidated in the motion that I am moving. They make their judgments in the light of the principles and criteria that have been followed in the past.

The motion proposes over 100 amendments to schedule 1, with four amendments to the existing entries in part I, which lists certain judicial offices. In part H, which lists all the bodies whose members are disqualified, the changes are 19 additions, 15 deletions and one amendment to an existing entry. There are 32 additional entries, 17 deletions and 12 amendments to existing entries in part III. There is one additional entry and two amendments to existing entries in part IV, which covers offices disqualifying people from representing particular constituencies.

I know that the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) has asked why some Northern Ireland bodies, which were not included in the list of those disqualified in 1975, are now listed in the motion. Those Northern Ireland bodies have been included in the motion because they meet the disqualifying criteria. At present, appointees to those bodies owe their appointments to Ministers in the United Kingdom Government, and they are being treated in the same way as similar appointments in other parts of Britain. It has been asked whether it represents a departure in policy by the Government. I can make it clear that it is not. The inclusion of these bodies merely reflects present realities but not the future intentions of the Government.

I or my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott), will be prepared to deal with any specific issues that are raised during the debate. I hope that as on previous occasions the House will give its approval to the amendments and resolve that the Order in Council be accepted.

2.10 am
Mr. Robert Sheldon (Ashton-under-Lyne)

The procedure that we adpot on these occasions is far from satisfactory. We have under the 1975 Act what is set out as reprint No. 6. The Library keeps the statutes up to date and the sheaves of loose leaf paper reveal the changes that have been made since 1975. They reveal also changes in the patronage that is at the disposal of the Government.

The purpose of the 1957 and 1975 Acts and the principle that underlies the Acts is the need to prevent undue patronage in the House and to reflect the incompatibility between membership of the House and the holding of certain other offices where it is thought that the amount of time and effort devoted to them might impede the work of the Member. Before the 1957 Act the holding of offices of trivial value might have been held to be the holding of an office of profit under the Crown, so disqualifying a person coming to this place, whereas in a sense there was not the degree of patronage that would have justified such important action.

The origin of these powers lies with the King's Party. Those who did not belong to the King's Party feared that the Monarch would take effective control of the House through the exercise of patronage. Under the Act of Queen Anne, which probably went too far, any Minister could be excluded. Obviously changes were necessary.

We are discussing the way in which the House is relatively free of the control of the Executive. However, we know that 95 Ministers have their office of profit under the Crown and that they are excluded by all the Acts that come before us dealing with these matters.

The greatest degree of patronage concerns the 95 Ministers. In fact, we are considering not only the 95 as there are others who are expecting or hoping and there are the PPSs. The total may be 150. They are to be regarded as a proportion not of the 635 Members of this place but of the Government party, which effectively determines what goes on in the House. Therefore, we are talking about 100 to 150 Members of Parliament in receipt of patronage, or who hope or expect to be in receipt of it, out of the 300 to 340 Government Members.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell

I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman would accept a certain modification. The expectation is actual in the case of the Government's supporters, but there is an equal and opposite expectation on the part of the supporters of the Opposition of the day, although it is subject to a certain deferment and qualification. But surely the right hon. Gentleman goes too far when he treats the effect of patronage as operating only on the Government Benches.

Mr. Sheldon

The right hon. Gentleman anticipated my remarks because, in practice, with a firm Government majority, Governments change their minds not so much due to the Opposition's actions as to the actions of Government Back Benchers. It is the Back-Bench pressure that is so important in changing the minds of Government Ministers.

We know what effectively happened in the House of Lords debate. The Opposition did not bring about the changes—the Back-Bench Members did that. The same thing happened in the "In Place of Strife" debate in 1969 and earlier last year in the debate on petrol duties.

We can effectively present the case for the Opposition, but, more frequently, the change of mind comes as a result of Government Back-Bench pressure which threatens the majority in a way that the Opposition do not because they are threatening it all the time. Government Back Benchers, by their threats, can propose some of the changes to which the Government listen. That is why we are talking about 100 to 150 out of the 300 —ߞ

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong)

Order. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the debate must be restricted to a discussion of the amendments to the schedule proposed in the motion and that it is not in order to debate the parent Act.

Mr. Sheldon

I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) led me astray.

Mr. Douglas Hogg

The right hon. Gentleman said that he was just coming to that point.

Mr. Sheldon

It was an interesting aside. In the House of Commons Disqualification Bill 1957, there was a detailed list of paid offices or places under the Crown. "Office of profit under the Crown" was also defined. The Bill no longer disqualified some of those previously disqualified.

The Act does not disqualify a Member of Parliament from the office; it disqualifies the office holders from membership of the House of Commons. It set up a certain consideration on the allowances to be payable to Members of Parliament and established that the highest rate for Members of Parliament, taking certain duties, would be the rate fixed by the Treasury at the highest levels of the Civil Service. There are other matters which we do not want to discuss—for example, the interesting position of clergymen and certain barristers. However, I might be forgiven if I mention just one aspect about banisters because, of course, they receive a certain level of—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The right hon. Gentleman is dealing with the parent Act and not the amendments before us.

Mr. Sheldon

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for drawing my attention to the need to restrict myself to some of the matters dealt with more directly in the schedule.

The first schedule is in four parts. Considering the various offices that we are concerned with, we start with the judicial offices, and the first general question I shall ask is about patronage. We should know the nature of that and its value. The first question is, who appoints some of the categories listed in the schedule, how much is the office worth, and how much work is done? That is by no means so easy to determine when there are such a large number of offices in the amendments under consideration.

For example, part II covers bodies whose members are disqualified automatically. Everyone who is a member of the Civil Service Appeal Board is automatically disqualified. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and the National Consumer Council are other examples. In order to understand and appreciate the necessity for excluding those people from membership of the House of Commons, one needs to know the value of the office and the amount of work done. Perhaps the Minister will deal with those three offices to give us some understanding of that matter.

Paragraph 3 of the part II amendments covers a number of bodies that are now to be omitted. Are they all being wound up? I know that some of them have been wound up. I am not sure whether that applies to all of them. Perhaps the Minister will reply to that question.

Paragraph 5 deals with the amendments to part III, which deals with the other disqualifying offices. That means that the office held by that person renders him liable for disqualification. It includes one office whose holder I know something about—the chairman of the British Overseas Trade Board, a distinguished industrialist. Is not that a part-time job? If so, how much is the nature of the job the cause for inclusion in part III?

Paragraph 6 states that certain entries will be omitted, including the chairman of a regional economic planning council. The idea of having a chairman of a regional economic planning council in the House would be a novelty. Will the Minister enlighten us on that? The paragraph refers to a. Member of the Council of the National Computing Centre appointed at a salary by a Minister of the Crown or government department. I presume that the National Computing Centre is still in operation. Is such a person permitted to be a Member of the House if he is a member of the National Computing Centre Council? It seems so. I should like the Minister to comment on that.

The next intriguing case is in paragraph 7, dealing with ambassadors. The Permanent Representative to an international organisation" is included in it.

Mr. Douglas Hogg

Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that the time has come for the House to reappraise the whole schedule to determine whether the offices and office holders should be excluded but that perhaps this is not the way to do it and the matter should be referred to a Select Committee?

Mr. Sheldon

I am intrigued by that suggestion. The hon. Gentleman's general comment closely fits in with mine. This procedure is an unsatisfactory way of deciding these matters. No one can look down the list of a large number of offices, knowing full well that there may be a considerable increase in the patronage offered by the Government. Without knowing the precise details of each of the offices and the people who hold them—he is not able to see the precise nature of that change of patronage. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion might be one way of doing it. There may be others. Certainly we want to voice our dissatisfaction with the way that it is being done here.

Schedule I has four parts, but schedule 2 has only one and there is no mention of it here. Schedule 2 covers the ministerial offices. One of the Minister's colleagues is the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. That office does not appear in schedule 2—I am not sure why—and it does not seem to fit into any of the other categories. Pehaps the Minister will comment on that.

One aspect about which we are clear is that there is a great need to be vigilant in these matters. A substantial majority of Members are mainly or wholly dependent on their salary as Members. The main present safeguard of their independence is that of our traditions, which can soon be altered by changing circumstances, and the economic dependence of Members of Parliament could easily be increased by any enlargement of patronage. The whole subject has not received the attention that it deserves. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply, but I hope that he will deal with the more fundamental point about how this matter should be dealt with in future.

2.26 am
Mr. Douglas Hogg (Grantham)

This is a debate of some historic and constitutional interest, as we are discussing disqualification from membership of the House. As will doubtless be mentioned by other hon. Members, there is a range of persons disqualified from membership, including peers, lunatics, bankrupts and convicts as well as those covered by the 1975 Act.

As has been said, the 1975 Act excludes a variety of persons because they hold specified offices. We are now asked, albeit at a late hour, to exercise the powers conferred upon the House by section 5 of the Act both to enlarge and to diminish the categories of those excluded from membership of the House.

It is important to emphasise that this is a matter of some moment not only to the individuals concerned but to the community as a whole, as it involves the loss of the right to select a candidate of one's choice. It is therefore a pity that we are discussing the matter at such a late hour, when the House is so sparsely attended and when there is no representative of the SDP or the Liberal Party present.

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones (Watford)

There never is.

Mr. Hogg

As my hon. Friend says, there never is, especially when matters of constitutional importance are raised. However, I let that pass.

We are being asked to exercise our power under section 5 of the Act. It is important to mention briefly what the disqualifications are, as only in that context can we consider the order.

Under part I of the schedule, a number of judicial officers are automatically excluded. Under part II, all members of certain specified bodies and institutions are automatically excluded. Under part III, certain specified office holders are automatically excluded. Under part IV there is a conditional and provisional exclusion of certain office holders within certain specified areas.

It must be fairly clear to most hon. Members that a variety of occupations are inappropriate to be held by Members of the House. This is either because of the degree of patronage that can be exercised or, more importantly, because it is thought that they should be independent of Parliament or the Executive. In the latter context, I am conscious of the judiciary. One has to recognise that people's perception of what it is appropriate for a Member of Parliament to do varies over the years.

The Minister said that the 1975 Act was a consolidation measure. To find a substantive measure one has to go back to the 1957 Act, itself founded upon the report of the Herbert committee established, I believe, in 1941. The source of the measure under discussion reaches back 40 years.

The question that I ponder is whether the net has been cast too far. Part II of the schedule contains a list of 143 bodies from which hon. Members are excluded. Why should members of the Attendance Allowance Board, a Colonial Currency Board and the Red Deer Commission be automatically excluded from membership of the House?

Part III excludes office holders. About 180 classes of office holders are excluded from membership of the House. Why should the chairman of the Mining Qualifications Board, the chairman of the Plant Varieties and Seeds Tribunal, the Constable, Lieutenant or Mayor of the Tower of London, the Lay observer appointed under section 45 of the Solicitors Act 1974 or the Lyon Clerk, whatever he, she or it may be, be excluded from membership? There may or may not be a decent argument in respect of all these classes. My question is whether the procedure being adopted tonight is appropriate. In practice, and in substance, this House, within the space of one-and-a-half-hours, is asked to make decisions of considerable constitutional significance.

I intervened during the Minister's speech to ask him to tell the House the process whereby office holders and bodies came to be incorporated into the schedule before the House. I had hoped, perhaps optimistically, that he would say that a Committee of hon. Members met to discuss the matter. That is not so. A discussion takes place between Ministers and their civil servants. My hon. Friend says that he applies the criteria. What criteria? There are no statutory criteria. There are the words of wisdom in the Herbert committee report. One can refer back to the speeches of the Attorney-General in 1956 and 1957. Why not go back for that matter, to the place Acts of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries? There are no clear statutory criteria that can be applied. Hon. Members should therefore feel considerable unease about what is requested of them.

It is not my intention to oppose the measure now before the House. I would not wish to be so provocative. The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) has spoken of those who hope for preferment. It would be a rash man who positively dished his chances by opposing a measure at this hour of night.

We are debating a serious matter. Anything that affects the composition of the House is a serious matter and is not to be taken lightly. I hope that the Government Front Bench will consider carefully the suggestion that I made during the speech of the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne. Before we make further changes under section 5 of the 1975 Act, we would do well to ask the House, meeting collectively, to reconsider the classifica­tions of persons and office holders presently disqualified. It may well be that the only sensible way to do that is to refer the issue to a Select Committee.

2.35 am
Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Down, South)

I should like to start by thanking the Leader of the House for having responded to a suggestion that I made to him at business question time last week, namely, that we might be provided in the Vote Office with some degree of explanatory material to help us in the study of the motion. That was provided—I personally found it very helpful—and it was elaborated on in the speech of the Minister moving the motion.

That said, I hope to persuade the Government and the House—and I think that this would be in line with other opinions that have been expressed—that we should never again do this thing in the way in which we are obliged to do it tonight. This thing is, in effect, legislating. Of course technically the legislative act is the Order in Council, but the decision which the House takes tonight will in effect amend an Act of Parliament on the statute book. So what is in fact happening—and it is rather grotesque when seen in this way—is that we are legislating a vast mass of detail, set out on two and a half pages of the Order Paper, in one decision and in one debate—something which is crassly incompatible with the manner in which the House normally goes about its business of altering or making law in detail.

Without impugning the wider proposition which came both from the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) and the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) that perhaps we should reconsider the whole procedure and the principles underlying it, I should like to make three major suggestions as to the way in which this process should be carried out under the 1975 Act, if it is ever to be carried out again.

First, I do not believe that the House should be presented—take it or leave it, as it were—with the proposals just baldly set out on the Order Paper. I have no doubt that in every case, covering every line of the motion, there is either a precedent or a more or less convincing reason for that item finding its place in the motion. In many cases:me can guess: one can guess that legislation which has not made specific amendment of the disqualification law has either abolished an office or created a new office or set up other bodies which are analagous to those which are already in the disqualification law. But it is not practicable for the most diligent of Members, confronted with a motion in this form, to satisfy himself, as he should be able to satisfy himself, what are the reasons and justification for a particular entry appearing in the various parts of the motion.

I think that there are two or three ways in which that difficulty could be alleviated or removed. The first is that the Government should accompany the tabling of such a motion with a statement or White Paper which sets out in each case—this could be done quite briefly—the reason why the entry appears—whether by analogy with some accepted disqualification or as a result of the alteration of the nature of an office or its nomenclature. An accompanying explanatory document of even that degree of thoroughness would be an enormous benefit to hon. Members.

Mr. Douglas Hogg

I know that the right hon. Gentleman's knowledge and understanding of con­stitutional practice is very good. I should like clarification from him. If we had such a motion albeit with a clarifying statement, am I not right in thinking that the House would have only two choices—to accept or to reject it? It could not amend so as to delete specific proposals.

Mr. Powell

It is with that in mind that I would go further in this part of the suggestions that I was making. If the House as a whole—and we are a whole House tonight—is to accept any motion of this character, it should know that the details have been considered on its behalf by a Committee of the House. My explanatory document should therefore be the basis for the work of a Committee of the House, which would then certify to the House whether it agreed or disagreed that the case for any particular entry had been made out. That is my second proposition.

Thirdly—I would with respect think that this is elementary—there should be a degree of consultation between the Government and other parties in the House. I gather—no doubt this is covered by precedent—that no such consultation has taken place. I am told by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne that the official Opposition were not consulted before the motion was put down on the Order Paper. Although the motion contains many references to Northern Ireland, no Northern Ireland party represented in the House was given warning or offered an opportunity to offer an opinion. So,in addition to the other two suggestions that I have made, I believe that it should be customary in future—I make no criticism as to the past—for the normal party consultations with which we are familiar to take place, conducted by the Leader of the House, as usual.

We are in another difficulty, which study of the motion throws up. There may have been some misunderstanding between myself and the Minister in connection with his reference to offices and bodies created "by administrative action", but in fact nearly all—certainly the vast majority—of the offices and bodies referred to in the motion were created by legislation. I believe that all the Northern Ireland bodies were created by legislation, albeit in some cases by the special form of legislation which has applied there in recent years.

That legislation in many cases is several years old already. I take a couple of examples. There is in paragraph 2 the Labour Relations Agency. The unsuspecting might suppose that that was a United Kingdom or Great Britain body. In fact it is a Northern Ireland body, but does not happen to have Northern Ireland in its title, so the uninquiring would be unaware that it is just as much a Northern Ireland item as several of the other items which stand around it. It was set up under an Order in Council of 1976. If we look a little further over the page, we find the Planning Appeals Commission established under the planning order of 1972. So these are offices or bodies, as the case may be, which have existed for a number of years—four or five or in some cases even 10 years.

I submit that it is preposterous, up to 10 years after an office is created, for the House to get around to declaring—ultimately by law—that it is an office or body, membership of which disqualifies a person from membership of the House. On the formation of these bodies the Government when making the appoinments no doubt consulted a considerable number of people and invited them to consider whether they would serve on them.

At that time membership of those bodies did not disqualify a person from membership of the House. Whether it did or not would surely be a consideration which might well be in the mind of any person approached with an invitation to accept one of the offices or to be a member of one of the bodies. However, we now come along, after the bodies have long been in existence and the individuals have long been serving, and say to them "Oh, and by the way, you are disqualified from candidature for the House."

Despite the future increase in the representation of Northern Ireland which I know the Government having strongly supported the proposal in Opposition are anxious to implement, I cannot believe that there will be a tremendous rush from the membership of the bodies set out in the amendments to part II or the holders of the offices set out in the amendments to part III of the first schedule to the 1975 Act to put themselves forward as candidates. Nevertheless as the hon. Member for Grantham said, we are doing a serious thing. We are attaching a statutory disqualification to the membership of a board or an office. It is inherently unreasonable that that should take place at a considerable and perhaps arbitary interval after the board or office has come into existence.

So, my further proposition—I hope that the Government can assent to it—is that no such interval of time as has elapsed before we come to deal in this way with many of these offices will ever elapse in future. After all, even if we are to go on with this procedure, it would simplify it if we tidied up—more or less as we went along. I realise that a statutory disqualification tidies up automatically and finds its effect in the reprinting of the underlying code as amended. But surely there is nothing impracticable in the Government, every year or every other year, bringing forward whatever motion of this character may have been necessitated meantime by the creation of bodies or offices by statutes which did not automatically carry on their face the parliamentary disqualification.

So that is another unsatisfactory aspect of what we are doing tonight—the inordinate lapse of time in some cases—which I hope can be taken into account, so that we shall not in that respect, too, again be presented with what we have before us tonight.

I do not wish to detain the House, and it would be tedious to do so, by asking questions of the sort which so naturally spring to everyone's mind in contemplating the disability of persons who are members of bodies as in paragraph 2, or chairmen and so on, as in paragraph 5, from being also Members of the House. I will just give one example which illustrates how carefully we should rethink whatever are the criteria for disqualification.

I find in paragraph 2 the Northern Ireland Economic Council. The council is a body valuable both to the Government, I trust, and to the Province and those who represent it in the House. For the life of me I can see no impropriety in an ordinary member of the council—a man who may serve on it for two or three years, who may be a business man or otherwise professionally qualified—also sitting in the House. I can see no patronage, no impropriety and no suggestion of perversion of judgment either as a Member of the House or as a member of the council, which would follow from the combination of the two.

I do not put that forward as a mature view, but on the face of it one is not at all clear how under any of the criteria such a function is brought within the scope of the motion.

Yet if we look across the page we find that it is only the chairman of the Standing Advisory Committee on Human Rights under the 1973 Act who is to be disqualified. That is most peculiar. Every member of the Northern Ireland Economic Council—an advisory council—is to be disqualified. On the other hand, there is the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights—a body that deals with much more difficult and politically sensitive matters—of which only the chairman is disqualified, while apparently all the other members could be members when appointed to it or could stand for Parliament and be elected after they had been appointed.

I pluck those two cases out of the list because they seem to illustrate the difficulty that an hon. Member is bound to feel in satisfying himself of the appropriateness or otherwise of what he is doing tonight.

I make only one other observation of that kind. I refer to Director of Harland and Wolff Limited and Director of Short Brothers Limited". I can see considerable argument as to the combination of membership of this House with directorship of a firm, which in the case of Short Brothers is not in public ownership although it is in receipt of public money. Yet in other cases there are firms also in receipt of public money whose directors can sit unblamed in this House. Is there any reason why one firm in receipt of public money should be singled out and not the directors of other firms similarly in receipt of public money?

I shall not pursue this matter. The remarks made by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne and the hon. Member for Grantham, as well as a perusal of the motion, indicate that we cannot leave this matter here for the future. We shall probably have to do two things. We must find a way whereby the House as a whole can reconsider these principles afresh, and we must also find a more acceptable method of doing the nuts and bolts work under the 1975 Act than the specimen before us tonight—through no fault of the Minister presenting it.

While there cannot be a precise acceptance and a specific undertaking from the Government Front Bench tonight, I hope that before the end of the debate we shall receive assurance that both the narrower and the larger aspects will be considered maturely by the Government before there is any question of any such motion as this coming forward again.

2.53 am
Mr. Den Dover (Chorley)

I give my full backing to everything that has been said by right hon. and hon. Members.

I want to foll

ow the comments of the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) about paragraph 3 of the motion. I am particularly concerned about the first five bodies on that list, from The Channel Tunnel Planning Council to The National Health Service Staff Commission and the last three, The Training Services Agency", "The Water Resources Board and The Welsh National Health Service Staff Commission". Are those bodies now defunct, or has it become apparent to the Minister that their members should be allowed to stand as Members of Parliament?

My main purpose is to ask two questions. The first relates to local authority officers. Has any thought been given to whether members serving full time with local authorities should be able to become Members of Parliament? I ask that because for the first two months of my service here I was a full-time officer and director of the Greater London Council. However, I was on a special five-year contract. Earlier the Minister shook his head when comment was made about the eligibility or otherwise of clergymen. The subject has been mentioned in the media recently, and I should welcome the Minister's comments. I am not satisfied by the procedure. and I should greatly welcome consideration of such matters by the appropriate Committee.

2.54 pm
Mr. John G. Blackburn (Dudley, West)

I do not claim to be an authority on the constitution of the House or to have dedicated myself to discovering the intricacies of the 1975 Act. However, I shall exercise every hon. Member's cherished right to play an equal role in discussing membership of the House.

My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) rightly pointed out that this is an historic occasion of great import. However, it is bordering on a cavalier attitude to debate such a matter at this late hour. To tinker with legislation sacred to the House is something that should be undertaken only with the greatest care. I am particularly concerned about some of the comments on the motives behind membership of the House. Who would decide who had enough time to devote to being a Member of Parliament? If people were disqualified by statute from standing as candidates because of patronage, there would be an obligation to outline why, and the salaries received by those in that unique position of being disqualified from service to the House.

A startling revelation has been made. The House is indebted to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) for pointing out that, by default, Governments of various persuasions have allowed 10 years to elapse before the restrictions came to light and were placed before the House.

Mr. Douglas Hogg

It is not so much that restrictions have come to light, but that the legislation is retrospective.

Mr. Blackburn

My hon. Friend is right. Hon. Members value his comments, which show that the situation has been aggravated. My hon. Friend is not condoning it in any way.

On 1 May 1981 the House of Commons Disqualification (Amendment) Bill was placed before the House, and that is noted in column 1015 of Hansard. However, hon. Members will see that the Bill was supported by the right hon. Member for Down, South. It is sad to note that among those who supported the Bill was the late Member for Belfast, South, Mr. Bradford. That measure should be incorporated in the legislation that we are being asked to enact at such a late hour.

I direct the Minister's attention to the positive, constructive and helpful suggestions that have been made. I should like to be associated with the suggestions, particularly in relation to consultation. As a simple, humble, diligent Back-Bencher I look through the legislation and find that many questions come to mind and remain unanswered.

We should discuss the question of consultation. We should exercise an abundance of faith. That faith is well placed in a Committee which has the opportunity to discuss soberly issues which are brought before the House. My wish is that never again should we tinker with legislation in this way. I look forward, perhaps not this evening, to an assurance that the issue will be referred to a Select Committee, that there will be consultation and that never again will the House be placed in the embarrassing position which it is in this evening.

3.1 am

Mr. Hayhoe

The issue is narrower than the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) suggested. He dealt with matters in the basic legislation rather than homing in to the motion. I accept the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) and by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), who stressed the importance of what we are doing tonight and the significance of it in constitutional terms.

I shall try to reply to some of the many detailed points and to respond to the wider suggestions about the way in which such matters might be dealt in future. If I miss some details, I hope that I shall be forgiven. I shall pick them up in correspondence later.

The right hon.Member for Ashton-under-Lyne questioned the procedures under which we carried out the provisions of the 1975 Act. His comment was echoed by the right hon. Member for Down, South, by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Blackburn). They made it clear that they believed that better procedures should be followed. I shall return to the specific points and to the suggestions made by the right hon. Member for Down, South.

The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne asked about the amount of pay, or time involved in offices of profit under the Crown. The issue is not the amount of money, but whether the office is paid. He will know of the former Chief Whip of the Labour Party, who holds a position in the docklands development body. Because he does not receive payment he is excluded from the provisions, whereas the express provisions of the parent legislation would exclude him from membership of the House if his position were paid. The payment is of considerable importance.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the numbers of Ministers and whether we were up to our quota. This does not concern the schedule, because it is one of the main provisions of the Act. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that the quota of Ministers overall is taken up. Primary legislation would be required to change the numbers.

The right hon. Gentleman also asked about amend­ments to schedule 2, which lists ministerial offices. Section 5 of the 1975 Act makes it clear that changes to schedule 1 may be made by Order in Council. Any changes to schedule 2 would require primary legislation.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary. That is a descriptive title. It is not an "office" with a statutory basis.

Mr. Robert Sheldon

rose—

Mr. Hayhoe

This is excluded from schedule 1. The right hon.Gentleman asked about schedule 2. Changes in schedule 2 would require primary legislation. The right hon.Gentleman will find that some of the titles of Ministers are subsumed into the generality of titles that are given there. For example, "Minister of State" is a wide title, into which I am sure the Economic Secretary, as a title, would be subsumed.

Mr. Robert Sheldon

What the Minister has told us seems odd when we look at schedule 2 and see all the titles. "Parliamentary Secretary" is one category and "Minister of State" is another, but the others are spelt out in detail. The hon. Gentleman said that the Economic Secretary does not need to be mentioned separately—.we shall look into this matter—but I should like to know the authority for that.

Mr. Hayhoe

rose—

Mr. Deputy, Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill)

Order. Before the Minister replies, I remind the House that we are dealing not with the Act but with an amendment to the Act.

Mr. Hayhoe

A number of ministerial titles—for example, the Minister for Health—are subsumed into "Ministers of State". I suspect that the Economic Secretary would be the same.

Mr. Robert Sheldon

In charge of a Department?

Mr. Hayhoe:

No, not in charge of a Department. I shall not pursue this matter, because it is out of order. If the right hon. Gentleman reflects on the matter, he will realise that what I am saying is right.

My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham was, to some extent, calling for a review of the 1975 Act. He is entitled to do that, but tonight is not the occasion, as he made clear.

I thought that he clearly described the process that we are following tonight. He also made a strong plea for a more deliberative effort to be made in dealing with matters of this kind. What he said seemed to be a trailer for the more detailed proposals put forward by the right hon. Member for Down, South, who followed the theme of what my hon. Friend said by suggesting specific ways in which the House might deal with these matters in future.

Mr. Douglas Hogg

I was saying that the House should re-examine the entire classification and that that should be done by a Select Committee. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said that we should have a different procedure for amending the 1975 Act.

Mr. Hayhoe

I suspect that, whether we have the one or the other, they will tend to run together. I take the point that distinction is important.

The right hon. Member for Down, South said, in effect, that we were legislating in an important fashion by making these amendments to the schedule in this way and that the normal practice was to effect legislative changes by going through more extensive procedures. I accept what he said, but, as he acknowledged, what we are doing is in accordance with the provisions of the 1975 Act. We are not acting in any way unlawfully. We are following the provisions of section 5 of that Act.

The right hon. Gentleman suggested that if we went through the procedure in this way again a full explanatory statement should be issued with the motion. That is a fair point. I give the undertaking that in future we shall seek to do something along those lines to explain why certain individuals or institutions are referred to in the motion.

The right hon. Gentleman also asked whether a Select Committee should look at the whole matter on behalf of the House. That is not a question for me to answer. What he said received support in other parts of the House, as did his suggestion that there should be consultation within the House, through the normal channels, with the parties, on a matter that has such a wide effect. I shall bring these matters to the attention of the Leader of the House, who has particular responsibilities in this connection.

The right hon. Gentleman asked a number of questions about some of the items in the schedule. He said that the Labour Relations Agency applied to Northern Ireland and was established under article 4 of the Industrial Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1976. He then mentioned the Planning Appeals Commission, which had been established under article 88 of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1972. He said that it had been in existence since then, but that only now was it included in the schedule as carrying disqualification. I accept his criticism that such a long interval should never be repeated. I sincerely hope that it will never happen again.

The right hon. Gentleman will know the particular circumstances that appertained in 1975, and although I was in no way responsible for those matters, because they occurred under the previous Administration, that Administration may have taken the view that circum­stances might change. At any rate, the matter has now been put right, and it is perfectly proper that we should seek to avoid such long delays in the future.

The right hon. Gentleman then mentioned a number of other bodies. He asked why members of the Northern Ireland Economic Council should not make a contribution to our debate here. The answer is that members are appointed by a Minister and paid, and they are therefore holding an office of profit. He asked why all the members of the Northern Ireland Economic Council should be disqualified, but only the chairman of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights. The reason is that the chairman is appointed by the Minister and paid whereas the members of the Council are not. The consistent theme involves appointments made or approved by the Minister, and pay is involved. It applies to the two firms which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned—the directors of Harland and Wolff Ltd., and the directors of Short Brothers Ltd. Those directors are appointed subject to the Minister's approval and are paid, and both companies are wholly Government owned. In those circumstances, they fall within the criteria.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) asked why a number of bodies were being deleted. The reason is that, effectively, they have ceased to exist. He also asked about local authorities. Those who work for them are not normally paid by the Crown and are excluded. He referred to clergymen, who are not covered by the legislation, although there is a clause that makes it clear that the provisions of other legislation are in no way altered by the primary legislation. It does not affect the schedule before us.

The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West merely underlined his belief that there should be better procedures for dealing with such matters in future.

As I said in opening the debate, the House has dealt with such matters on four previous occasions, twice on the nod in 1963 and 1975, when no hon. Member thought fit to raise any point, and then in 1961 and 1968, when there were short debates. It is clear from what we have heard tonight that those who have spoken take a somewhat different view from that taken on previous occasions. I have known the House to be better attended, even at this hour in the morning. However, I hope that I have given sufficient assurances to all concerned that the suggestions that have been made will be considered.

Mr. Robert Sheldon

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hayhoe

I hope that the House will accept the motion that I have put forward.

Mr. Sheldon

Before the hon. Gentleman sits down—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I believe that the Minister has sat down.

Mr. Hayhoe

I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Sheldon

The House will have noted the gallant way in which the hon. Gentleman tried to answer some of the questions about why certain offices should be included and others excluded. However, his obvious difficulty in going through the large number of offices that were mentioned by myself, the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) and the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) shows that this cannot be repeated and that we must have a better way of dealing with such matters.

Mr. Hayhoe

I believe that I was not wise to give way, because the right hon. Gentleman is reiterating a point that has been made and acknowledged.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 be amended as follows:—

`Amendments of Part I

  1. 1. —(1) En the entry "Stipendiary Magistrate within the meaning of the Justices of the Peace Act 1949" for the words "the Justices of the Peace Act 1949" there shall be substituted the words "the Justices of the Peace Act 1979".
  2. (2)In the entry beginning "Resident Magistrate" the words "the Summary Jurisdiction and Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 1935 or" shall be omitted.
  3. (3)For the entry "Chief or other National Insurance Commissioner" there shall be substituted the following entry
  4. "Chief or other Social Security Commissioner (excluding a person appointed in pursuance of section 13(5) of the Social Security Act 1980).".
  5. 4.For the entry "Chief or other National Insurance Commissioner for Northern Ireland" there shall be substituted the following entry— (4)"Chief or other Social Security Commissioner for Northern Ireland (excluding a person appointed in pursuance of section 13(5) of the Social Security Act 1980).".

Amendments of Part II

Amendments of Part III

  1. 7.—(1) In the entry relating to Ambassador after the word "Ambassador" there shall be inserted the words "or Permanent Representative to an international organisation".
  2. (2)In the entry relating to Chairman of an Appeal Tribunal for the words "under Schedule 3 to the Supplementary Benefits etc. Act (Northern Ireland) 1966" there shall be substituted the words "Schedule 4 to the Supplementary Benefits (Northern Ireland) Order 1977"
  3. (3)For the entry beginning "Chairman of any of the Consultative Councils" there shall be substituted the following entries—
  4. "Chairman of any of the Consultative Councils established under section 7 of the Electricity Act 1947 for the areas of Area Boards in England and Wales.
  5. Chairman of either of the Consultative Councils continued in existence by section 17(1) of the Electricity (Scotland) Act 1979 for the districts of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board and the South of Scotland Electricity Board."
  6. (4)In the entry beginning "Chairman of a Local Tribunal" for the words "section 94(2)", in both places where they occur, there shall be substituted the words "section 97(2)".
  7. (5)For the entry beginning "Chief Electoral Officer" there shall be substituted the following entry—
  8. "Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland or any whole time officer appointed under Section 14A(1) of the Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1962."
    9. 278
  9. (6)In the entry beginning "Distributor of Stamps" the words "Manchester or" shall be omitted.
  10. (7)In the entry beginning "Industrial Assurance Commissioner" for the words "Industrial Assurance Act (Northern Ireland) 1924" there shall be substituted the words "Industrial Assurance (Northern Ireland) Order 1979".
  11. (8)For the entry "Lay observer appointed under section 7 of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1976" there shall be substituted the following entry—
  12. "Lay observer appointed under section 49 of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980.".
  13. (9)In the entry beginning "Member of an Agricultural Marketing Board appointed under section 2 of the Agricultural Marketing Act (Northern Ireland) 1933" the words from "section 2" to "1933 or" shall be omitted.
  14. (10)In the entry beginning "Member appointed by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food of the Agricultural Wages Board" for the words "the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food" there shall be substituted the words "a Minister of the Crown".
  15. (11)In the entry beginning "Member appointed by the Head of the Department or Minister of Agriculture for Northern Ireland" the words "or Minister" shall be omitted.
  16. (12)In the entry beginning "Member of a Wages Council or Central Co-ordinating Committee appointed under paragraph 1 (a)of Schedule 1 to the Wages Councils Act (Northern Ireland) 1945" the words from "or Member" to the end shall be omitted.

Amendments of Part IV

  1. 8. After the entry beginning "Her Majesty's Lord-Lieutenant or Lieutenant for the district of the city of Aberdeen" the following entry shall be inserted—
  2. "Her Majesty's Lord & Any constituency compris Lieutenant or Lieuing the whole or part of the area tenant for a county or for which he is appointed.". county borough in Northern Ireland.
  3. 9.—(1) In the entry beginning "Her Majesty's Lieutenant for Greater London" after the word "Majesty's" there shall be inserted the words "Lord-Lieutenant or".
  4. (2) In the entry beginning "Her Majesty's Lieutenant for a county" after the word "Majesty's" there shall be inserted the words "Lord-Lieutenant or". '.

Back to