§ 5. In the second column of the entry relating to Her Majesty's Commissioner of Lieutenancy in the City of London for the words 'The Cities of London and Westminster' there shall be substituted the words 'The constituency comprising the whole of the City of London.'.
§ The motion seeks the approval of the House to the amendment of the Order in Council of schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975. The procedure we follow is laid down in section 5, and schedule 1 lists those offices whose holders are disqualified from membership of the House. It is, obviously, necessary to keep the detailed provisions up to date.
§ It has been the usual practice for any legislation that establishes new offices or winds up existing offices to amend schedule 1 accordingly. The 1975 Act is reprinted from time to time in accordance with the provisions of the Act to incorporate such amendments. The last such reprint was made on 1 May. In addition, from time to time it is necessary to bring schedule 1 up to date by Order in Council to add offices that have been created by administrative action, to amend or correct existing entries and to delete offices that are no longer appropriate. The procedures laid down in section 5(1) of the Act have been followed on previous occasions, and certainly during the past two years I have brought them before the House.
§ This motion covers 20 amendments, made up of six new entries, six deletions and eight amendments to existing entries. The amendments are described in detail in the explanatory note that has been placed in the Vote Office. Ministers have been individually responsible for those additional entries that cover offices within their areas of responsibility. They based their judgments on the same general principles and criteria that have been followed in the past, and which are covered in the explanatory note.
§ As we are following a well-established procedure, I commend the motion to the House.
§ 12.3 am
§ Dr. Oonagh McDonald (Thurrock)I hope that in the amendments the basic consideration will be to exclude as few people as possible from standing for Parliament. I hope that when applying the criteria the Government will bear in mind that overriding consideration.
The criteria outlined in the explanatory note appear to differ in their nature. Criterion C refers to
Offices imposing duties which with regard to time or place would prevent their holders from fulfilling Parliamentary duties satisfactorily".The fact that they would take up too much time or otherwise prevent a Member of Parliament from attending Parliament seems to be a somewhat vague criterion. I hope that it will be one that will occupy less of the Government's attention when they consider who should be disqualified from standing for Parliament. Although I understand that the criterion has been operating for some time, it nevertheless seems to be rather difficult to apply, bearing in mind that many Members hold jobs of various kinds, which some of us would suggest take up too much of their time. Of course Members are free to carry out such work and the matter is left very much to their discretion.480 My second point would perhaps require an amendment to the Act. It is that persons should be able to stand for Parliament, but on being elected they should be obliged to give up whatever post or office they hold if it falls within the list of disqualifying offices. It would leave people free to decide whether to run for Parliament. If they are elected they are clearly aware that they have to give up the post. That might be a better approach than obliging a person to decide to give up the job before standing for Parliament.
Will the list be reconsidered as various privatisation measures take effect? That would require some alteration to the list. There are one or two minor puzzles. I wonder why the word "or" is inserted in
Chairman or Chief Executive of the Simplification of International Trade Procedures Board.I understand that the Lord Chancellor is considering whether justices of the peace — not stipendiary magistrates — should be disqualified from standing as Members of Parliament on the grounds that it would involve too much work. Criterion C, which I have already mentioned, would apply here. If that is the case, and it is a disqualification that the Government intend to propose later, what will be the position of Members of Parliament who are already justices of the peace? That could seriously reduce the number of alliance members of Parliament. I am sure that the Government would take a serious view of that matter. Will they be required to stop being Members, thus causing an interesting series of by-elections, will they merely be required to resign as justices of the peace, or will they have the choice?
§ 12.8 am
§ Mr. HayhoeI can assure the hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) that the objective is to exclude as few people as possible from the privilege of being eligible for election to the House. The criteria are well-established. I have noted what the hon. Lady has said. It can be taken into account for the future and I will reflect upon the points that she made about criterion C which I agree is rather wide. The hon. Lady suggested that those holding disqualifying offices should have the option of being able to resign their office if elected to Parliament, rather than being disqualified. That would mean changing the primary legislation in the 1975 Act. That could not be done by order and would, therefore, be considered if the Act came up for review.
The hon. Lady referred to several detailed points. First, the list is reviewed each year. We follow that procedure and I gave an undertaking to the House in 1982 that we would bring forward an amended schedule, as we have done tonight, so that the list does not become too out of date. She asked why the measure referred to the chairman "or" to the chief executive. It is because one or the other could be disqualified. I imagine that that is purely the way in which our legal advisers and draftsmen transcribe our thoughts into the action documents.
The hon. Lady also referred to the possibility that the Lord Chancellor might be considering applying the disqualification to certain justices of the peace. I am not aware of that; indeed, if such a proposal were introduced it would need to come to the House for endorsement before it became effective. Whatever the prospect of an interesting series of by-elections, they could not take place by stealth and would require debate in the House. I suspect that if that proposition were before us tonight rather more 481 hon. Members would be in the Chamber. I hope that the low attendance may indicate general acceptance of the motion, which I commend to the House.
§ Question put and agreed to.