CAMBERWELL, BRISTOL AND NOTTINGHAM ELECTIONS (VALIDATION) BILL. (Hansard, 26 March 1946)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD JOWITT)
My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I had to introduce a Bill rather on these lines not very long ago. I hope this will be the last time I shall have to do so. This matter arises out of the obscurity surrounding the question what in fact is an office of profit under the Crown. A Committee has been sitting to consider the subject and I myself have been giving much thought to the matter. Before very long we may be able to introduce a Bill to deal with this very difficult topic. The present Bill relates to three persons who were returned as members of the House of Commons; Mr. Harrison, Mrs. Corbet and Mr. Awbery. The House of Commons Privileges Committee considered the matter (and recommended unanimously that this Bill be passed. It then came 'before members of another place, and they quite rightly treated it not as a matter of form but, far from being that, a matter that needed very serious consideration. However, they decided to pass the Bill, and it passed through all its stages without any Divisions.
The other place is of course rightly supreme in deciding matters about its own members. It is possible however that in some similar case to this, proceedings might come before the Courts to recover penalties. And I want to make it quite plain that if the matter does come before the Courts, the Courts will consider they are not bound by the precedents by which the other place regards itself as bound.
For my own part, I regard as a matter of exceeding doubt—I put it no higher 334 than that—the effect of being placed on a panel. All these three persons were placed on panels; that means to say that they indicated their willingness, other things being equal, to serve if and when called upon so to do. Mr. Harrison was put on the panel of a Pensions Appeal Tribunal. For my part, I very much doubt whether being put on a panel entails any right on the part of the person who is put on to be appointed to serve in any particular case, and it is only if he is so appointed that any remuneration attaches to the office. I very much doubt if he would be under any legal liability if, owing to domestic circumstances, owing to having changed his mind or whatever you will, when the time came he declined to serve. Under those circumstances, I express the view—I go no further—that the question as to whether the placing of a person on a panel does or does not constitute an office of profit under the Crown is a matter which might have to be further considered if the matter ever does come before any of His Majesty's Courts.
The facts here are very striking. Mr. Harrison, for instance, was put on the panel of a Pensions Appeal Tribunal and he was called upon to serve on only three occasions, namely, in September, 1944, January, 1945, and April, 1945. He received a fee of 30s. for each, attendance but he lost more than that sum in wages. The last payment he received was in April, 1945, which was, of course, before any material date.
The case of Mrs. Corbet is perhaps more striking still. She was put on a panel to deal with hardship cases particularly relating to women. The last time she served was in 1943 in which year she received £8 8s. for two attendances. Indeed, long before the material date it was made plain to her that she never would be called upon to serve again, because the calling up of women had been stopped. However, it was held by the Privileges Committee that she was still technically a member of the panel and therefore, they thought, holding an office of profit under the Crown.
As to Mr. Awbery's case, he was appointed to a panel under the National Service (Armed Forces) Act. On the 21st July (which was before the 26th July, the date of the declaration of the poll), he asked the Minister of Labour, by letter, to accept his resignation but owing to the fact that the Minister or Labour did not 335 reply until 21st August it was held that Mr. Awbery remained a member of the panel until that date and consequently still held an office of profit. He last served in June, 1944, which was, of course, more than a year before the critical date. On the facts of this case the House of Commons obviously had no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that they did, but it does indicate once more, if we want another indication, the desirability of trying to clear up the obscurities which are left under the old Act.
I commend this Bill to your Lordships. It is of course peculiarly a matter concerning the other place, but they have passed it and I recommend your Lordships to do the same. I hope your Lordships will pass it through all its stages.

LORD SIMON
My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to say that I should not expect there to be any opposition to this particular proposal, although I always regard it as very unfortunate when retrospective legislation has to be passed because it is supposed that an individual was not qualified to be made a member of the House of Commons when that individual was elected. I have no doubt there was complete good faith in the present instance, and I share the Lord Chancellor's hopes that this will be the last example. The question whether people are paid or not is not, as we all know, the real question. The question is whether the office is one of the sort to which payment might be attached; you do not escape by saying "I will not be paid."
I rise principally to say that I am very glad to hear from the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, that he is able to assure us that he expects shortly to introduce a general Bill on the subject. There was a Committee which held many sittings, presided over by my noble friend Lord Hemingford, before which some of us gave evidence. I did as a matter of fact. There were a great many points of difficulty which were then brought up and which should certainly be got rid of by a new Statute, in which I am sure we should be glad to co-operate. For those reasons I do not myself think that my noble friends are likely to raise any further objection.

§ VISCOUNT SAMUEL
My Lords, this is a Bill which your Lordships will obviously be glad to pass, remedying some of the gross absurdities which arise out of the present state of the law. I myself feel somewhat bitterly about this, having been the victim of that obscurity in days gone by. It is high time this change was made. After all, it is quite a considerable time since Queen Anne died and during the interval many of these absurdities have arisen which urgently need remedying. I think we all ought cordially and publicly to encourage the Lord Chancellor in the initiative he has taken. We trust that he will be able to persuade his colleagues to give him Parliamentary opportunity for carrying into law such a Bill as he has foreshadowed.