SHORT TITLE (Hansard, 25 January 2000)

§ Sir Brian Mawhinney
The clause is short, but it causes me confusion. In my 20 years in the House—

The Chairman
Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but there must be order in Committee so that he can be heard.

§ Sir Brian Mawhinney
Thank you, Sir Alan.
I have spent more than 20 years in the House, and I have been confused on several occasions. When confusion afflicts me, it is best to share it with the House in the hope that colleagues can clarify matters.
The Bill is riddled with the word "disqualification". The clause states that the measure can be called the Disqualifications Bill. That is consistent with the title on the front page. The Home Secretary's contribution on the European convention on human rights states that the provisions of the Disqualifications Bill are compatible with the Convention rights. 474 The Government acknowledge in the Bill's title that the measure is about disqualification.

§ Mr. Leigh
The Bill is mistitled because it is not a Disqualifications Bill. It removes disqualifications and should be called the Qualification of Irish Members Bill.

§ Sir Brian Mawhinney
My hon. Friend makes an important point, which he presented with characteristic clarity. If he is so minded, he may take an opportunity to catch your eye, Sir Alan, to explore that matter further. However, I do not want to focus on that.
The long title of the Bill contains the word "disqualification" once and "disqualify" once. As we have noted in earlier debates—though I shall not return to those matters, as you would not wish me to do that, Sir Alan, and it would be wrong to try—

The Chairman
I do not want extraneous advice of that kind from the right hon. Gentleman. He must stick to the point of the clause, which is very narrow.

§ Sir Brian Mawhinney
I accept your ruling without reservation, Sir Alan. I am establishing the point that the word "disqualification" in clause 4— [Interruption.]

§ Mr. Ian Bruce
On a point of order, Sir Alan. Most of us who have been listening to debate on the Bill for the whole night are trying to hear my right hon. Friend's speech. We cannot hear either your rulings, Sir Alan, or the speech because of the noise coming from Government Members—who should have been here all night making speeches themselves.

The Chairman
I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is quite the best person to make that comment. I most certainly have been here all night—and as I have listened with great care to the proceedings so far, so I wish to listen with great care to the completion of those proceedings.

§ Sir Brian Mawhinney
Clause 4 states that the Bill can be referred to as the Disqualifications Bill, which is consistent with the Government's approach throughout. I am not reopening any of the issues, but pointing out that the word "disqualification" or "disqualified" regularly appears throughout the Bill.

The Chairman
Order. The right hon. Gentleman has already committed one repetition. I do not want to hear any more.

§ Sir Brian Mawhinney
"Disqualification" characterises the Government's attitude to this and previous legislation—all of which is referred to in the Bill.

§ Mr. Hawkins
My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) suggested that a more accurate 475 title would be the Qualification of Irish Members Bill. Does my right hon. Friend agree that a more accurate title would actually be the Removal of Disqualifications Bill?

The Chairman
Order. Again, that repeats a point already made. I will not have constant repetition on a clause this narrow.

§ Sir Brian Mawhinney
I will not pursue my hon. Friend's interesting suggestion.
I was making the broader point that the Bill's title sits comfortably with the general attitude of Government legislation on Northern Ireland. The 1998 Act, which is central to our considerations, also talks about disqualification. The Bill refers to the 1975 Act from a Labour Government, which similarly refers to disqualification.
The Government talk about social inclusion. They have a social inclusion unit at 10 Downing street and have spent two and a half years—right to this 1,000th day of the present Government, when they lost control of the House of Commons—lecturing us about social inclusion and not excluding or disqualifying people.

The Chairman
Order. The right hon. Gentleman is departing far from the topic before the Committee, which is a simple matter of determining the title of the Bill. He has great experience of the House and must direct his remarks precisely to that point.

§ Sir Brian Mawhinney
As always, I am grateful for your advice, Sir Alan, but my purpose is not to widen the debate beyond the clause. As you remarked, we are deciding whether it should stand part of the Bill.
When the Minister replies to what I suspect will be a brief debate, will he explain why a Government who are focused on inclusion—so they tell us—have introduced a Bill that they discuss in terms of disqualification or exclusion?

§ Sir Teddy Taylor (Rochford and Southend, East)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the title Disqualifications Bill is insensitive, especially on the day on which we have been told that students from the south of Ireland will not have to pay fees at Scottish universities, although those from the north of Ireland will?

The Chairman
Order. That is absolutely nothing to do with the matter before us.

§ Sir Brian Mawhinney
I would not have dreamed of following my hon. Friend down that line, even before you, Sir Alan, had ruled that I should not do so.
I am trying to put a serious point to the Government. They could have chosen a number of titles. The clause, on which we are focusing, did not have to refer to disqualification and could have used inclusive rather than exclusive terms. We see again that they say one thing but do another. As we continue Tuesday's business and Wednesday's is lost, and as we show that the Prime Minister has no control—

The Chairman
Order. The right hon. Gentleman is in danger of abusing his poison, as those are not matters to 476 which he may refer. I must tell the Committee that if he repeats his remarks, and if I believe under Standing Order No. 42 that a Member persists in irrelevance, or tedious repetition", I may require him to resume his seat. I am sure that he would not want me to invoke that provision against him.

§ Sir Brian Mawhinney
I certainly would not, Sir Alan. I want the Minister to explain why the clause uses such terms, given Government policy.

§ Mr. Maclean
rose—

§ Mr. Bowen Wells (Hertford and Stortford)
On a point of order, Sir Alan. Can you help me and the Committee with the wording of the clause? Is it incorrect? It says: This Act may be cited as the Disqualifications Act 2000. Surely it should be—

The Chairman
Order. That is common parlance in all Bills that come before the House. That is not a point of order. I call Mr. Maclean.

§ Mr. Wells
May I seek your advice, Sir Alan?

The Chairman
Order. I have ruled on the matter. Is this a fresh point of order?

§ Mr. Wells
It is fresh, as I see it, and I hope that you will see it in the same light. A Bill cannot become an Act—

The Chairman
Order. The hon. Gentleman should remember his position. He is seeking to dispute my ruling. He should consider that he is not the most appropriate person to challenge the Chair in that way.

§ Mr. Wells
rose—

The Chairman
Order. I advise the hon. Gentleman not to persist.

§ Mr. Wells
I am very sorry, Sir Alan, but I am not trying to challenge your ruling in any way—I do not understand it. Did you say that using such words is common practice?

The Chairman
Absolutely. That is perfectly clear, as the hon. Gentleman, who has been in the House for many years, well knows. That is the end of the matter. I again call Mr. Maclean.

§ Mr. Maclean
I want to raise a small point on clause 4, on which I hope the Minister can advise us. The clause provides that the Act may be cited as the Disqualifications Act 2000. [Interruption.] I hope and believe that I am right in saying that it is usual for the parliamentary draftsmen—[Interruption.]—

The Chairman
Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. I must have order in the Committee. If hon. Members are present to listen to the debate, they must do precisely that.

§ Mr. Maclean
Thank you for your protection, Sir Alan.
477 I understand that it is usual for parliamentary draftsmen to select a short title to an Act that is entirely consistent with the long title. My concern is about a technical point, which I hope is in order. The long title of the Bill, soon to become an Act, includes the words remove the disqualification for membership". However, the thrust of the Bill is about enabling people in another Parliament to sit in this Parliament, so it is about giving people a qualification.
The long title refers to removing the disqualification, whereas the short title is the Disqualifications Act. Did the Government decide on the short title and overrule the parliamentary draftsmen? Will the Minister tell the Committee whether the short title was proposed by the legal advisers and parliamentary draftsmen, or whether, as it is inconsistent with the proper long title, it was a political decision taken by the Government to make a word mean what it does not mean?
I think that I have made my point. I hope that it is clear. I have no wish to repeat it, but I urge the Minister to comment on it.

§ Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed)
On a point of order, Sir Alan. Is there any way in which you, as Chairman of the Committee, could enable us to hear a statement, perhaps from the official Opposition, explaining why they chose to deprive their leader, my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) of the opportunity to challenge the Prime Minister this afternoon?

The Chairman
The right hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a matter for the Chair.

§ Sir Patrick Cormack
Further to that point of order, Sir Alan.

The Chairman
Order. I have just ruled that it was not a point of order.

§ Mr. Maginnis
The interesting thing about the title of the Bill is that it reflects neither the pressures nor the purpose that motivated the Government to bring it before the House. As it deals with the qualification of Members of the Dail and the Seanad to be Members of this House or the House of Lords, I looked into the number of people who would be qualified to become Members of this Parliament. I discovered that there were 166 in the Dail and 60 in the Seanad.
I know many of the people who would qualify under the Disqualifications Act 2000. I have dined and lunched with quite a few of them in the past fortnight, and I know no one who has any interest whatever in the Act. In fact, the opposite is the case.

The Chairman
Order. I must advise the hon. Gentleman that he is talking about the Bill as a whole. He must direct himself to the narrow point contained in clause 4.

§ Mr. Maginnis
Indeed, Sir Alan, I want to stick with the title because it is seen as a misnomer. The Bill is seen as something designed exclusively to facilitate Sinn Fein-IRA. Whereas the House will give the Bill the imaginative name "Disqualifications Act 2000", in 478 Northern Ireland and among members of the press, the Bill has already been given a somewhat tasteless but, I reluctantly have to admit, appropriate acronym. That acronym is BITCH—Blair's Irish terrorist charter.
The significance of the Disqualifications Act 2000, or BITCH, as it will no doubt be called in future—

The Chairman
Order. The hon. Gentleman may realise that he has probably overstepped the mark of order. There is no way in which that name could be a substitute in parliamentary language for what is in the clause. He must address his remarks to the clause and whether he believes that it should stand part of the Bill. There are no amendments to the clause on the amendment paper. The question is whether the clause should stand part of the Bill.

§ Mr. Maginnis
Thank you, Sir Alan. I agree that it is unfortunate that the Committee spends so long taking a Bill that is so objectionable to so many people—

The Chairman
Order. I do not want to hear any circuitous arguments. The hon. Gentleman must direct himself to the clause or I will ask him to resume his place.

§ Mr. Maginnis
Thank you, Sir Alan. The fact is that the Disqualifications Act 2000 will, whatever it is called, bring a degree—

The Chairman
Order. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would take my advice. He may not talk about the Bill or its effects, or what people think about it. He may say only whether the Bill, or Act as it may become, should be cited as the Disqualifications Act 2000. That is the only point before the Committee. I will not allow him to extend further than that.

§ Mr. Maginnis
Sir Alan, you assist me in so far as you indicate in a reverse way the very point that I want to make. Whatever we call the Bill—I conclude with this point—it will invoke among hon. Members a huge amount of—

The Chairman
Order. The hon. Gentleman is abusing his position. I call Mr. Ian Bruce.

§ Mr. Ian Bruce
My remarks will be both in order and very brief, Sir Alan.
We all understand that, when Bills are brought before us in Committee, they are considered line by line, with the exception of the long title and the trade description title that goes with the Bill. I ask the Minister to think carefully about how the Bill will be considered in the future. Lawyers and others will want to be able to find the relevant legislation. My colleagues have already said that the Bill is not a disqualification Bill but one that lifts disqualifications for people.
It may have been sensible if we had tabled some amendments to the title. The dichotomy and the catch-22 that the Committee is in is that, once the Government 479 have decided to produce and publish a Bill with a name such as the Disqualifications Bill, it is difficult for someone to table an amendment that would be in order.

The Chairman
Order. This is all very interesting, and the hon. Gentleman might like to find an opportunity for an Adjournment debate on the matter or to make a submission to the Procedure Committee, but it is not in order for him to discuss the matter in a clause 4 stand part debate. There was an opportunity to table amendments and none were tabled, so we are able to discuss only clause 4 as it stands.

§ Mr. Bruce
I was simply trying to make the point that, had I tried to table an amendment, it would have been refused—

The Chairman
Order. That may be an interesting procedural point, but it is not one that can be made at present. Does the hon. Gentleman have other points to make that are relevant?

§ Mr. Bruce
In all humility, I ask the Minister whether, before the Bill goes to the other place, there is a device by which I would not fall foul of the rules of procedure on tabling amendments, which would enable the Bill's title to be changed to something more appropriate. That is my simple plea.

§ Mr. Leigh
It is important that the short title of a Bill as important as this should adequately explain the Bill's purport to the general public. In some ways it does that. The word "disqualification" appears in the short title, so one would expect to find some reference to disqualification in the Bill and for the title adequately to reflect to a wider public what is contained in it. If we think in terms of a disqualification Bill, we presumably think of a Bill that disqualifies somebody.
Clause 2 makes it clear that the Bill disqualifies some people. It states: No person may—

(a) stand for election as First Minister or as deputy First Minister, or be elected as such,

(b) be nominated to hold a Ministerial office, or

(c) be appointed as a junior Minister,

if he is a Minister of the Government of Ireland. Therefore, the short title describes what is in clause 2.
However, clause 2 is only part of the Bill. My complaint about the short title is that clause 2 is not the heart and guts of the Bill. It was inserted after representations were made to the Government, but it is not what the Bill is really about. The Bill is not about disqualifying a Minister in the Irish Government; it is about qualifying people who are Members of the Irish Parliament to sit in this Parliament. That is my argument with it.
There is a political point to be made. The debate would have been much shorter if the Bill had simply been concerned with qualifying or disqualifying Members of the Irish Parliament. The Bill has aroused such passion because it is not about qualifying or disqualifying 480 Members of the Irish Parliament, but about qualifying known terrorists to use offices in this House of Commons. That is what infuriates people.

The Chairman
Order. That is going far too wide of this stand part debate on clause 4.

§ Mr. Leigh
It remains true, however, that a short title should adequately reflect to the general public what is in the Bill.
It may be said in the Bill's defence that it amends previous legislation. Clause 1 says that the Bill amends Section 1(1)(e) of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 and section 1(1)(e) of the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975 (disqualification of member of the legislature of any country outside the Commonwealth)". It may be argued that the short title does not adequately convey the political purport, the guts and the sense of the Bill, but I must turn my argument on its head and approach the matter from a different direction. Because the Bill amends previous legislation, it is probably true that the Government had no choice but to call it the Disqualifications Act 2000.
2.45 pm
I understand the Government's dilemma, caused by their uncertainty about how to frame their proposals. In the context of the procedure of the House, it would be interesting to know whether, when they introduce a Bill such as this that repeals earlier legislation, they must use the language—in terms of the short title—that was contained in that earlier legislation. I am not sure that they must, and I hope that the Minister will enlighten me.
Generally, Bills repeal or amend legislation in some way. It would be ridiculous for all of them to have the same titles as previous Bills, and I cannot believe that the Government are arguing for that. Why, then, are they calling this the Disqualifications Bill?

§ Mr. Robathan
In referring to the short title, my hon. Friend has identified the confusion that lies at the heart of the Bill. The fact that we cannot tell from the short title whether the Bill is intended to disqualify people or to qualify them demonstrates the error of making constitutional change off the cuff, as the Government have been doing.

The Chairman
Order. Hon. Members are in danger of repeating themselves. There is a limit to the number of words that can be devoted to this matter.

§ Mr. Leigh
There is, indeed, a limit to the number of words that may be devoted to this matter, but, Sir Alan, there is no limit to the anger that Conservative Members feel. That is why we shall continue to try to show the British public exactly what this grubby little Bill is trying to achieve.

§ Mr. Mike O'Brien
The title of the Bill is a matter for parliamentary draftsmen; Ministers have not been involved in decisions of that kind. The Bill amends 481 legislation relating to disqualifications and adds a new disqualification relating to Irish Ministers who cannot be Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive.

§ Mr. Howard
Will the Minister give way?

§ Mr. O'Brien
No, I will not.

§ Mr. Howard
rose—

The Chairman
Order. Both Members must now take their seats. It is not clear to me whether the Minister is giving way. He must indicate that he is, or indicate otherwise; but if he does not give way, the right hon. and learned Gentleman must resume his seat.

§ Mr. O'Brien
I am not going to give way, Sir Alan.
I have made a genuine attempt to reply to the points that have been made, but it has sometimes been difficult for me to do so, because some hon. Members have not been able to get through their speeches without having to be brought to order. I have, however, tried to respond to points that seemed to me to penetrate the semantic discursiveness, bluster and other Tory games.

§ Mr. Fabricant
On a point of order, Sir Alan. The Minister may have forgotten that he was brought to order twice in succession earlier.

The Chairman
That is not a point of order. I have had to say that more than once to the hon. Gentleman today.

§ Mr. Howard
Although I spoke on Second Reading, I did not intend to speak in this debate. However, I was astonished by what the Minister just said about clause 4. He told the Committee that clause 4 was a matter for the parliamentary draftsmen, and that Ministers had not been involved. Is he denying any ministerial responsibility for clause 4?

§ Sir Patrick Cormack
Does my right hon. and learned Friend not realise that new Labour is allergic to clause IV?

§ Mr. Howard
That is a tempting suggestion, but I suspect that you, Sir Alan, would not look with approval on any attempt by me to respond to it.
There is a serious point, which is of absolute and direct relevance to whether clause 4 should stand part of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will clarify the matter. I was astonished that he did not give way to me, but I hope that he will deal specifically with this fundamental point: is he standing at the Dispatch Box and denying ministerial responsibility for clause 4?

§ Mr. Mike O'Brien
The right hon. and learned Gentleman, a former Home Secretary, puts his reputation on the line by making such silly points. We are clearly responsible for the Bill. The point that I was making was in reply to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), who had asked me a specific question about whether Ministers had intervened to alter the view of the parliamentary draftsmen about the name on the Bill, to which I gave a clear indication that Ministers had not.
482 With his long experience in the House, the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows perfectly well that Ministers are responsible for the Bill. He demeans himself by indulging in the sort of discursive tactics that have been deployed by the Tory party and in the games that Tory Members have visited on the Committee all night. We have seen bluster and discussions. The public will have seen the sort of Conservative party that has taken part in the debate.

The Chairman
Order. That is well outside the debate on clause 4 stand part.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.