---

House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975

The schedule represents the consolidation of the list, which includes those who have been exempted in statute. Updating it is a necessary process, but there must be a better way of doing it. The hon. Gentleman is right to point out the huge number of quangos that exist. I take with a pinch of salt his assertion that any future Conservative Government would massively reduce the number of quangos. We remember previous Conservative Governments, who did not do it, and we remember when the Labour Government came to power in 1997 promising the bonfire of the quangos, but they did not do it, either. The public have good reason for taking with a pinch of salt any assertion that such a programme would be carried through by any future Administration. We all take the view that there are far too many people who are members of such bodies and carry out strategic and executive functions with no accountability to the local electorate. I would be much happier if there were a democratisation rather than the abolition of many of the organisations listed in the schedule. I want to raise one small issue with the Minister, although I do not expect her to know the answer. While perusing the 1975 Act, I noted that it is regularly reprinted, so we are not talking about an out-of-date version. Clause 1, as she mentioned, refers to disqualification on the basis of being a member of the regular armed forces. I note that there is still a reference to the Ulster Defence Regiment. That would have been a live consideration in 1975. The regiment was formed in about 1970 and performed sterling service in Northern Ireland over many years, but it no longer exists as a separate body. It has been absorbed into the Royal Irish Regiment. I can see why it might have been appropriate for the Ulster Defence Regiment, as a territorial force, which it always was, to be disqualified back in 1975. I am not sure whether that still applies. Will the Minister consult the Ministry of Defence and the Northern Ireland Office to see whether the reference ought to be amended in the light of present circumstances? I do not know the answer. It seems to be an anomaly. The consolidated schedule is helpful in one respect. Members of the bodies listed know that they hold disqualified posts. Perhaps things have changed, and perhaps the Minister can reassure me, but in my experience there is very little information on what people should do about that if they intend to stand for election. I say that because in 1997 I was a member of the Audit Commission. As the Audit Commission is one of the proscribed organisations, that meant that I was disqualified from the House of Commons. I sought advice at that time from the Audit Commission and from others about exactly what I had to do to make sure that I was not inadvertently disqualified from being elected to membership of the House. I found it difficult to work out. Did I have to resign before nominations were opened; before the dissolution of the House; before nominations were closed; before the day of the election; or before the day that I was sworn in as a Member? Was I bound by the notice that I was required to give? If there were a sudden election and I handed in my notice as a member of the organisation, would I be able to resign with immediate effect? If I could not and the election were held three weeks after the day on which I handed in my resignation, would I be disqualified from standing? Those are real issues for people in that position, and it would be helpful if the Government provided clear information to all the bodies listed. They could then distribute advice simply and easily to their members, chairmen or whomever the listed post holder might be, saying, ““No, to comply with the disqualification Act you must tender your resignation with immediate effect on this date relative to the date of the election,”” or whatever the appropriate advice might be.