HC Deb 13 February 1997 vol 290 cc501-13

1A. The following entry shall be inserted at the appropriate place:— Recorder and Assistant Recorder".'. I must join the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) in referring to previous debates. He did indeed speak on 12 April 1983, and he used these words: As we are close to a general election, it is not for me to spell out exactly which part of the Government's policy I thoroughly support and which part I support, especially as the debate is to end at half past 11."—[Official Report, 12 April 1983; Vol. 40, c. 771.] Therefore, he did participate in that debate, when I moved virtually the same amendment as I have moved tonight.

I should also inform the House, to make this a comprehensive survey perhaps, as of now, that the other part of the hon. Gentleman's contribution related to what appeared to be an anomaly to some of us at that time: the appointment of a Member of the House, the former right hon. Robert Mellish, who had been the Opposition Chief Whip—he is now a noble Lord in another place. He was the deputy chairman of the London Docklands development corporation, which was a salaried office, but one for which he chose, understandably, not to receive remuneration.

There was an anomaly of an office of profit under the Crown, which I would have thought, in normal terms, that would have been. Some people—I should add that the then Robert Mellish's constituency was included in that region—naturally felt that he might have gained advantage as a Member by being vice-chairman and, at the same time, that he gained advantage as vice-chairman by being a Member, particularly as a Secretary of State of another party was involved. I make that point only because the anomaly has, happily, disappeared—although happily Lord Mellish has not.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) on his interesting opening speech. We obviously do not disagree on these matters along party lines. There is a case for a Act to consolidate the historic prohibitions and remove the anomalies. It would not matter if that caused repetition, because the later Act would displace the former.

There are two separate issues before us. One is the prohibition on certain citizens standing as candidates—which is perhaps overdone, as the hon. Member for Eltham suggested—and sitting as Members. Some people should not be candidates—judges of the High Court, for example—but many more should be allowed to stand on the assumption that they would resign their office if they won. They could sign a document to that effect.

The other issue, which affects fewer people, is the prohibition on sitting Members being appointed to offices of profit. If sitting Members are allowed to act as recorders, as they are in England, they have an advantage. They are not allowed to act in a judicial capacity in Scotland and that is the anomaly. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) pointed out that there are requirements for political impartiality for members of the judiciary. If a Member is appointed to sit as a recorder or an assistant recorder, he will be politically partial unless he sits as an independent, which is unusual. That situation is constitutionally dubious, as I shall mention later, and should be tidied up.

I understand the objection that my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr made about the procedure today. On the other hand, it has some advantages. We are not restricted to only an hour and a half's debate, as would be the case with a statutory instrument.

Mr. Rooker

We have only an hour and a half today.

Mr. Spearing

In that case, I must watch the length of my speech. The matter is being addressed by a motion of the House and we have been able to table amendments—an opportunity that I have taken.

We need better documentation. I am grateful for the explanatory note, but a White Paper with a House of Commons number would have been better. We do not know who published the explanatory note, because it does not say, and it is not signed by a Minister, or even on his behalf by a civil servant.

On 12 April 1983, no fewer than 15 Members were recorders or assistant recorders. Now there are only three, and I have informed the right hon. and hon. Members concerned of my amendment. I believe that their character, their knowledge of the House and their knowledge of the law make them capable of playing a different role when they put on a wig, even if they occupy a senior position in a political party or appear on television programmes on important civic matters. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, with your colleagues in the Chair, are an excellent example of the ability of right hon. and hon. Members to switch into different roles.

However, that ability is not immediately apparent to those who send us here. They find it difficult to accept the idea that someone can one day sit, fully bewigged and in a judicial capacity, alongside full-time judges—who stand apart from the rest of us in many ways, and properly so—and the next day be here dealing with the political hurly-burly. It is a constitutional anomaly. We are always told by constitutionalists that the judiciary, the legislature and the Executive each have their own functions. The Executive is created and destroyed by the legislature, and is accountable to it. The judiciary and the legislature are properly separated. Of course, there has to be a join somewhere, and in England and Wales it comes in the persons of the Attorney-General, the Lord Chancellor and the Solicitor-General. In Scotland, of course, the Law Officer of the Crown who fulfils the duties of the Solicitor-General is not a Member of Parliament. That underlines the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr made earlier about better practice in Scotland, which may be something to do with its Presbyterian heritage. Nobody could deny that the anomaly exists.

In the debate in 1983, Mark Carlisle—then the right hon. Member for Runcorn, now Lord Carlisle of Bucklow—made a distinguished speech, but the only argument that he advanced in favour of the status quo was that it was important to maintain a link between those who make the law, especially on police and criminal matters, and those who dispense it in a judicial capacity. Others have argued that it is important for those with judicial experience to bring their knowledge of the realities of the law to the House, but that does not mean that anyone has to fulfil both roles simultaneously. Hon. Members meet people from chambers of commerce, industrialists, transport workers and borough councillors, who tell us of the impact of our work on them and what they require from the legislature. The special pleading for those who act as recorders is not so strong, therefore, as it sounds on first hearing. There are many opportunities for people acquainted with judicial matters to bring their experience to bear here and in another place.

So the argument in favour of that arrangement is for the future. This is more of a discussion than a definitive occasion. Even if by chance the idea were accepted tonight, I would not suggest that the three or four right hon. and hon. Members concerned should summarily be dismissed from those offices of profit. The matter is more for the future than for an immediate decision today.

However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr said, the further we go, the more necessary it is for anomalies to be cleared up and the documentation improved. Above all, hon. Members and those who pay attention to us should be assured that we not only exercise democracy but are seen to do so. So long as there is the anomaly of hon. Members with paid judicial functions elsewhere, that will not be so.

Perhaps the Government will give me an assurance in response to my final question. Some years ago, the anomaly was so great that a Member was appointed recorder of a town in the area that he represented. Such a thing would not be tolerated today, but it happened then. I understand that the office is no longer a local government function, as it was historically, but became an office of profit under the Crown in the 1970s.

I hope that the Minister will assure us that if further appointments are made before any change in the law, despite the fact that arrangements are now made on an area basis, people will not be able to sit anywhere near the area that they represent, or an area with which they have close connections of any sort. Conflict of interests would thereby be avoided.

That hope and that suggestion fall somewhat short of my amendment. I moved the amendment, but I do not wish to press it heavily, other than for the purposes of discussion. I hope that the Minister will respond as constructively and thoughtfully as my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr did in his interesting speech.

5.41 pm
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock)

It seems to me that whether the measure should be implemented by order is not the most important issue. The most important issue is whether the ideas in the motion have been properly canvassed. I listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), and it was clear that he had not had the opportunity to understand the full extent of the proposed amendments. If he has not had that opportunity, and other hon. Members have not been given reasonable time, the people most affected have certainly not been given notice.

I am thinking primarily of the people who diligently serve, basically as volunteers, on industrial tribunals. I shall talk about them later. It seems mean-spirited, if not rather sloppy of the Minister not to allow an adequate consultation period before bringing the matter before the House. He can screw up his face as much as he likes, but he has not done that, and he is a sloppy Minister. That fact needs to be put on the record. [Interruption.] I shall come to the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Gautier) in a moment. If my adrenaline really starts to flow, when I start asking questions about people having other jobs besides being Members of Parliament—

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. I caution the hon. Gentleman against straying out of order by going far beyond what is before us tonight.

Mr. Mackinlay

Indeed, I am very mindful of that warning, as always, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Once I realised that the subject would be debated today, I obtained the so-called explanatory note, but it is not very good. It consists of a list rather than an explanation. Consequently I tabled some parliamentary questions as soon as I could. I have just slipped out of the Chamber to see if any answers have arrived, but none has.

That is why I ask the Minister whether, if with the leave of the House he replies to the debate, he will explain the alterations affecting the position of lieutenants and lord-lieutenants of the islands in Scotland. Perhaps the changes are a consequence of local government reorganisation.

If the Minister had not been so dilatory and sloppy he could have included that in his explanatory note, or at least ensured that I received a reply before we embarked on the debate. If he were at school he would be given only four out of 10, at the most, for his stewardship of what should be a relatively easy matter to bring before the House.

I asked the Minister for an explanation because I wondered whether the Conservatives had selected a candidate who is a lord-lieutenant for an islands area. Perhaps that is why they had to make the exclusion. I do not know, but I am a pretty suspicious fellow when I think of some of the perverse offices whose holders are allowed to be Members of the House, compared with some of the offices that prevent their holders from becoming Members. Perhaps there was a political intention behind the change. No doubt we shall hear from the Minister soon.

Mr. Rooker

I do not want to spoil a good speech, but, as I understand it, the alteration simply takes account of the fact that the word "region" is being changed to the word "area". So far as I know, it is a consequential change in the drafting.

Mr. Mackinlay

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but he has to be patient for only a few more weeks. He will soon be the Minister. I am criticising the existing Minister for not having regard to what I think is my entitlement as an hon. Member—a full and adequate explanation in the documentation. When that does not exist, and I table a question, surely courtesy dictates that the Minister should have ensured that I had a reply before we embarked on the discussion.

I know that things will be better in about six weeks' time, because my hon. Friend will be the Minister handling the matter. His undertaking to try to secure parliamentary time for a root-and-branch review of the legislation is welcome. I look forward to that. Perhaps, contrary to his better judgment, my hon. Friend may even allow me to serve on the Committee on the Bill.

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman must deal with what is happening now.

Mr. Mackinlay

Reference has been made to hon. Members who serve on industrial tribunals. The change is being brought before the House a few weeks before a general election, and it is reasonable to suspect that, at a time when they were not disbarred, some people serving on industrial tribunals will have been selected by political parties as their candidates.

From this afternoon those people will be disbarred. One assumes that that information will filter down to them through the political parties, and they will have a choice of either surrendering their prospective candidacy or resigning from the industrial tribunal before nomination day.

As I said in my intervention, that is tremendously unfair. Unless the present Minister can give an undertaking today, it is unlikely that, having resigned from the tribunals, people who fail to be elected shall then be reinstated almost automatically, on a fresh application.

Mr. Peter Bottomley

It may be helpful to recall that in 1984–85, for reasons that I shall not go into, a number of people resigned from industrial tribunals. As the assistant Minister at the Department of Employment, I managed not to accept their resignations, and later most of those resignations were withdrawn. I do not suggest that we should do anything underhand, but if the proposal before the House causes a problem, the Minister may want to consult and find out whether what happened then establishes a precedent. If so, members of industrial tribunals who stand for election can openly say that they have submitted their resignations, but if they are not elected the resignations will not be accepted, and will in effect be dropped.

Mr. Mackinlay

That is a good idea. It demonstrates the fact that if there had been consultation, such ideas could have been bounced off the Minister informally. He might then have decided not to include members of industrial tribunals on the list in the first place—partly because it was a perverse daft idea anyway. We have heard no persuasive explanation for their inclusion. That was demonstrated by my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr, and there is no logical reason for it.

Mr. Bottomley

An alternative would be for my hon. Friend to indicate whether a manuscript amendment could be submitted which would leave the members of industrial tribunals in the position after the passing of the legislation that they were in before—that is to say, they are not included. Were the Chair willing to accept such a late manuscript amendment to that effect, there would be no change from the present position. This might be important, because clearly members of industrial tribunals make up the majority of those who might be affected and they may not know that they will be affected.

Mr. Mackinlay

I wait with bated breath to hear the reason why they have been included on the list, and we will see why later on.

Mr. Spearing

This procedure illustrates that Parliament—in what is almost a Committee-style debate—can not only find problems but, as the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) has just done, provide answers. It has just occurred to me that if there is to be a great exit from the Tory Benches, or a risk that some Tory Members may be looking for these jobs, those who are not on the Government Front Bench might be advantaged by the anomaly that I pointed out.

Mr. Mackinlay

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I now wish to refer to the amendment. As a matter of principle, serving members of the judiciary should not be Members of this House, as there is a conflict. That is not to say that hon. Members who hold those offices are anything other than diligent Members and skilled practitioners of law. That is not at issue. But it is a matter of constitutional propriety. It is wrong for people who are law makers in their judicial capacity—their judgments can become precedents and the law of the land—also to be Members of Parliament. To have that dual role is unhealthy in a democracy.

My second point on that is that we are talking about a paid office of profit. I am of the view that hon. Members should not have substantial paid outside employment but, alas, that matter is not at issue this afternoon. It is wrong that the state should pay people for substantial outside employment while they are also Members of this House, and the office of recorder is one such post. That is simply wrong. It is a matter of debate whether or not people should have outside interests, and they can defend their position. But the Crown should not be encouraging that in a modern democracy, as most hon. Members find that serving this House is a major preoccupation, seven days a week throughout the year. I hope that when my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr is the Minister he will bring forward legislation to deal with that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr said that there are problems in legislating for Members of this House to be full time. In many modern Parliaments—including one with which I am particularly familiar, Poland—Members can have outside interests as academics, lawyers or architects, but they do not take a full salary. The system is transparent, and people understand it. Many constituents are not aware that hon. Members are serving as recorders or have other outside interests. We will return to this debate after the election.

My hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr mentioned the question of Roman Catholic priests. I go along with him that there is an anomaly, but it seems to me that the anomaly is that priests of the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England cannot be elected to this House.

Mr. Rooker

No.

Mr. Mackinlay

My hon. Friend answers from a sedentary position, but in my view there is no logical reason why serving Anglican ministers or Roman Catholic priests—although their Churches might not approve—cannot be candidates or serve in this House. They should be entitled to stand, although whether it is prudent for them to do so or is acceptable to their Church is a matter for them and their Church authorities. But there should be a presumption in a democracy that people can stand for the legislature, or there must be extraordinarily good reasons to exclude them.

I accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr said. It would have been ridiculous that had Bruce Kent been elected, he would have been prevented from serving as an hon. Member. There was no way in which he could have shed the fact that he had been ordained as a Roman Catholic priest. He would have been in a similar position to that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) before the passing of the Peerage Act 1963, in that there was no way in which he could get rid of his disqualification.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr that this is a ridiculous situation, but surely the answer is that priests—whether they are members of the Church of England or the Roman Catholic Church—should not be prevented from serving in the House. Episcopalian ministers from Scotland and Wales can be elected, and we know that ministers from other religions serve in this House. I hope that that will be looked at in the not too distant future.

I failed to persuade the Chair about the merits of my amendment, and I will not trespass into its provisions. But it puts down a benchmark for the next Labour Government, who must look at whether or not people can serve in this House and have substantial paid outside employment. I think that that is wrong in a modern democracy, and countries such as the United States have strict rules and limitations about outside employment from which we should borrow. We must make membership of this House more modern, and we should not disqualify very good servants who serve, for instance, on industrial tribunals.

5.55 pm
Mr. Bates

With the leave of the House, I shall respond to the speeches that have been made, which—by and large—were of a quality that will help the debate. When we looked at the Act and the amendments to it, we were aware that this was an on-going process. This is not a complete document by any means, and we are not seeking this evening to achieve perfect legislation.

The Act that we are amending now was passed in 1975 by a Government of a different colour. It is not perfect in every form, but the general principles are that we should try to maintain high standards and, wherever possible, avoid apparent conflicts of interest. In the time available to me, I shall try to respond to some of the serious points that have been made.

Mr. Peter Bottomley

The House will be grateful for the attitude that my hon. Friend has shown at the beginning of his reply. In terms of the major parties— Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat—how many adopted prospective candidates are members of industrial tribunals?

Mr. Bates

I am afraid that I do not know the answer to that. It is difficult to quantify, and only when the general election is called will the true nature of the answer be seen.

An important element of this is that the addition of the tribunals' lay members does not mean a change in policy. In 1975, the members of the employment appeal tribunal were disqualified. On taking up their posts, lay members of the tribunal signed an instrument of appointment which set out that they were prepared to resign their membership on adoption as prospective parliamentary candidates. That position is clear. Far from a conspiracy theory about trying to block certain people from entering the House, we were making a genuine effort to try to clear up a matter that could have been misinterpreted. Some may have thought that only the full-time personnel on the employment appeal tribunal would be disqualified, whereas it applied to all members. They should know that, because it was on the instrument of appointment that they signed.

My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) made a sensible point when he talked about a similar case that had arisen when he was in office. We are talking about guidelines and, should it transpire after a general election that a candidate was elected who was disqualified under the Act, I am sure that the House would look carefully and sympathetically at the case.

Mr. Bottomley

Is my hon. Friend saying that if I was appointed as a member of an employment appeal tribunal, I would sign a document to the effect that if I was adopted as a prospective parliamentary candidate I would stand down from the EAT, or that those who are appointed to industrial tribunals make that commitment? Would there be a significant harmful effect if the manuscript amendment to leave out lines 90 to 93 and lines 168 to 169 were accepted, so that we do not make the proposed change in this trawl but can come back to it on another occasion?

Mr. Bates

I am talking about industrial tribunals as well as the employment tribunal; I should have made that clearer. On the generous offer of a manuscript amendment, the matter can be reviewed. It has been reviewed 10 times already; indeed, it is under permanent review. The last review was in 1993, and there is no reason why the point could not be considered again if it was deemed to be worth while. We drew on representations, many of which were made during the debate in 1993.

Mr. Spearing

I understand the Minister's reluctance to accept even the suggestion of a manuscript amendment at this hour, but does he agree that another suggestion that might be taken up by readers of this debate is that, if a resignation was tendered, those who had to accept it and confirm the receipt of it might delay that acceptance or reply until after a certain date? That would at least get rid of the anomaly for the three months coming up.

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. Before the Minister continues, let me make it crystal clear that it rests with me whether a manuscript amendment is accepted. None will be accepted.

Mr. Bates

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. That stops that line of inquiry in its tracks.

Mr. Spearing

No, it is irrelevant to my point.

Mr. Bates

I listened to the hon. Gentleman and I shall certainly reflect on what he said.

I apologise to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) for the fact that the rather lengthy list was put late into the Vote Office, if it was the case that in previous years the Opposition had longer to study it. We put it there a week ago, but we shall try in future to allow more time for hon. Members to consider our proposed additions. When the amendments that the Government have proposed are made, a reprint will be issued of the 1975 Act shortly afterwards, including a full list of all the positions at issue.

The hon. Member for Perry Barr made some passionate remarks relating to the clergy which were strongly endorsed by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham. It is important to recognise that a member of the clergy in the Church of England can resign his position by means of the Clerical Disabilities Act 1870 and take his seat in the House. There is no similar Act for Roman Catholic priests. Perhaps there should be: that must be considered on another occasion.

I want to take up the interesting point about the leader of the Referendum party and his position should he seek election to the House. The Council Act of 20 September 1976 establishes the rules for direct elections to the European Parliament, so changes to that Act are outside the scope of the motion. The rules do not debar members of national legislatures from membership of the European Parliament.

The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) made some interesting comments, some of which I do not agree with. He has a habit of looking for the conspiracy in everything: if the answers to questions are late, it must mean that the Government have something to hide, rather than a little bit of slowness in the courier service—which is in fact the only reason.

As the hon. Member for Perry Barr said, this is a deregulatory measure. Where the Act refers to areas, rather than island areas and regions, those are different entries. We have sought to combine them, and that is the reason for the changes.

The hon. Member for Thurrock made some disparaging remarks about my office, which I am sure that, on reflection, he will want to withdraw.

Mr. Mackinlay

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Bates

Let me just finish what I am saying, because I have some better remarks to come. The hon. Gentleman made some disparaging remarks, and should he be thinking about intervening, I should mention that I have to hand the Register of Members' Interests, open at his entry.

Mr. Mackinlay

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. My disparaging remarks related to him, not to his office. The point is that the "explanatory note" contained no explanations, and there had clearly been no consultation. That is why I say that the Minister's stewardship was not right. I do not see a conspiracy, but I believe that there should be proper transparency in the House. As happens so often, measures are being bounced through.

Mr. Bates

Well, seven days is a long bounce, as they say, just as a week is a long time in politics.

An important point was raised about recorders. It has long been recognised that the full-time judiciary must be disbarred from membership of the legislature, and part I of schedule 1 achieves that. It has also been long recognised that it is not only compatible with being a Member of Parliament to practise a profession, but can be a positive advantage, both to the individual Member and to the House as a whole. Several hon. Members are lay justices, and I am not aware of anyone raising any objection to that.

The position of recorders is somewhat different, in that they are paid for each sitting day; it would be a poor judicial system that did not pay them for the valuable work that they do, which is, after all, a public service. Often those people are in chambers and could therefore be earning substantially more than they are given for their daily sitting as a recorder.

Of course, those recorders do not sit within the boundaries of their constituency. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) represents a seat in Leicestershire.

Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough)

Staffordshire.

Mr. Bates

He represents a seat in Staffordshire, but sits as a recorder in London. I understand that three Members are serving recorders. Their practical knowledge of the administration of justice has brought valuable experience to the House. Members who are recorders or assistant recorders do not, by custom, sit as recorders in their constituencies. Supporters of the amendment have not succeeded in persuading me that that long-established custom should be changed. I therefore advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the amendment. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr. Peter Bottomley

By leave of the House, I should like to speak again.

Madam Deputy Speaker

The hon. Gentleman cannot speak again.

Mr. Bottomley

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have a difficulty over the industrial tribunal change. My hon. Friend the Minister confirmed in winding up that we are bringing something into statute which was not there before and argued that the House should accept that. He kindly acknowledged in his winding-up speech, made by leave of the House, that neither he nor other hon. Members know how many people are affected. There is a significant point of order in that the House should not wantonly, recklessly or lightly disqualify from standing people who have been in all honour democratically selected by their parties. May I repeat my request to speak, by leave of the House, in response to the Minister? If I could, it would be useful to people who may be affected by what the House decides in the next 15 minutes.

Madam Deputy Speaker

That is not a point of order. I cannot adjudicate on such matters. It is my strict understanding that it is not possible to speak twice to the same Question except in very limited circumstances. I do not think that that applies to ordinary Back Benchers.

Mr. Spearing

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The House is obliged to the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley). He has spotlighted something that did not occur to us in the debate. We do not know how many people might be disbarred in the next few weeks by our decision tonight on candidatures for office. Would it be in order for the Minister not to move the motion, or for it to be negatived? When the Government find out whether anyone will be affected—and the effects could be serious—they could bring back the substantive motion, which could go through the House quickly, perhaps even on the nod. It is, of course, a matter for the Minister to decide whether he should pursue that course of action. If he does not pursue it, and there is difficulty, it may be said that it could have been avoided if he had listened to the debate and to the hon. Member for Eltham.

Madam Deputy Speaker

It is not for the Chair to second-guess a Minister on whether he wishes to withdraw a motion. That must be a matter for him. Normally, if one does not like something, one votes against it.

Mr. Bottomley

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would be most grateful if you could guide me to the reference in "Erskine May" that distinguishes between Back Benchers and Front Benchers speaking by leave of the House. This is my only chance to respond to the Minister's remarks about the debate. For me to block the motion because I was unable to make some concluding remarks would be a rather heavy weapon to use, but, as you said, that is an option open to hon. Members.

The sense of the debate was that the Government should get their change to the law. However, we now know not only that it is possible that people have stood for selection, and perhaps been chosen, but that it is conceivable that they might have put themselves or their parties to inescapable expenses, not knowing that the House would make a retrospective change. The easiest way forward might be if I were to conclude my point of order, listen to your ruling and ask whether by leave of the House, I might make some concluding remarks that could tidy the issue up to the satisfaction of the House. If any hon. Member said no, I would not pursue it. If I could speak, it may help those outside the House who want to join us after the general election.

Madam Deputy Speaker

The general rule is that a Member may not speak twice to the same Question. There is a different arrangement in respect of the right of reply of Members who have moved substantive motions. I am satisfied that I am right in not allowing the hon. Gentleman to make a further contribution. He has made his various points.

Mr. Bottomley

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I asked whether there was a reference in "Erskine May" to Back Benchers not being able to ask the leave of the House to speak again.

Madam Deputy Speaker

I have already said what I believe the position to be. I am sure that "Erskine May" references can be found, but I cannot produce them now. I am satisfied that I was correct on my last point.

Mr. Spearing

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Would it be in order for the Minister, if he so wishes, to take my suggestion before you put the Question on my amendment?

Madam Deputy Speaker

I am sorry, but I did quite not catch that.

Mr. Spearing

Would it be in order for the Minister to pursue my suggestion, which I hope was constructive, to avoid any problems with candidates in the next three weeks, before you put the Question on the amendment, which I believe is the next formal Question to be put by the Chair? So far, the Minister has shown no sign of so doing, but I hope that he would use it as an insurance policy so that the House will not be blamed for any consequences. We do not know the facts.

Madam Deputy Speaker

I cannot rule from the Chair on what a Minister wishes to do. No doubt he will make his decision plain and the hon. Gentleman will be able to decide his course of action.

Mr. Rooker

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm that you understood that the Minister said that the resolution formalises the status quo? Perhaps the Minister could confirm that passing this measure does not change anything. However, for the better information of those who may be affected in the next couple of weeks, perhaps all 2,700 of them could have the issue drawn to their attention as a matter of urgency so that they would know exactly where they stand.

Madam Deputy Speaker

That is not a point of order.

Mr. Bates

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This bout of points of order may be due to the fact that we have not made absolutely clear the position on people who may seek election to the House. With your permission, I hope to make it clear. Their instruments of appointment to their present positions would require them to resign forthwith on becoming prospective parliamentary candidates. I hope that that is clear for the record.

Mr. Bottomley

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The House has not been told when that was brought in. I was not aware of it when I used to make appointments

Mr. Rooker

indicated dissent.

Mr. Bottomley

If, as a Minister, I was not aware of it, I am not sure that all those who were appointed were aware of it. The situation is unsatisfactory. I support the suggestion that if people put in prospective letters of resignation, Departments should not be too speedy in acting on them.

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Member knows that that is not a point of order and we cannot pursue it further.

Has the Minister concluded his remarks?

Mr. Bates

Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Amendment negatived.

Main Question put and agreed to.

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