REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
| Author | J. A. G. Griffith |
| Published date | 01 January 1957 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1957.tb00425.x |
| Date | 01 January 1957 |
REPORTS
OF
COMMITTEES
SPECIAL REPOBT
FBOM
THE
SELECT
COMMITTEE
ON
THE
HOUSE
OF
COMMONS
DISQUALIFICATION BILL
(H.C.
849
OF
1955-1956)
TEE main object of this Bill is to give effect to Part
I
of the
Report from the Select Committee
on
Offices and Places of Profit
under the Crown (H.C.
120
of
1940-1941).
That Report contained
the form of the Bill contemplated by that Committee and its first
provision was to be:
“
Except as hereinafter provided
all
persons
holding an oflice from
or
under the Crown shall be disqualified for
election to
or
for sitting as a member
of
the House of Commons.”
The present Bill, as committed, stated in clause
1
:
“
Subject to
the provisions of this Act, a person is disqualified from member-
ship of the House of Commons who for the time being
.
.
.,,
and
there followed a list of offices being judicial, in the civil service,
in the armed forces, in the police forces, the membership of foreign
legislatures, and others miscellaneous but specified. Then the Bill,
in clause
1
(1)
(g),
disqualified any person who held
“
any paid
office
or
place under the Crown not described in the foregoing
paragraphs
of
this subsection.” The Bill, as amended by the
Select Committee, omitted clause
1
(1)
(g).
And the amendment
is
clearly fundamental.
For
all disqualifications thereby become
specific and there is
no
general provision. This should reduce the
number of subsequent discoveries that a Member is disqualified and
the need for Acts of indemnity.
In
the last few years the situation
has become mildly farcical and the parties have exchanged “tu
quoque
”
allegations across the
floor
rather as children will. The
meaning of
“
oflice of profit
yy
has taken flight and is at present
to be sought in the outer air of lawyers’ disputation
so
that the
Attorney-General advised a Select Committee
on
Elections in
Beattie’s
case (H.C.
145-1
of
1955-1956,
Q.
8):
“
Remuneration
is always profit. Allowances may
or
may not be. Compensation
for
loss
of
earnings is not profit. Compensation for loss
of
remunera-
tive time may
or
may not be profit.” Such distinctions indicate
ingenuity but in this matter clarity is of more value.
The Committee considered at length “whether
it
would be
preferable to substitute the principle of disqualifying a member
of the House
of
Commons from holding any of the specified offices
for the principle that the specified offices should disqualify the
holder from membership of the House of Commons.” Eventually
this principle
of
‘‘
reverse disqualification was rejected by the
Committee mainly because, in their view, the existing principle
leaves the House in more complete control of its composition and
procedure, and the introduction of
‘‘
reverse disqualification
52
To continue reading
Request your trial