Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Baroness Keeley (Labour) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 10 February 2010. It occurred during Debate on House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975.


House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975

Well, I did not actually bring up the number of quangos. There has been a suggestion that there are too many board members of quangos, or that they are too well paid. There is an annual Cabinet Office report on public bodies, which shows that there were 38,000 people on the boards of public bodies in 1997, which has now fallen to about 12,000. There are fewer posts, and many of them are not highly paid. In fact, some are unpaid. We announced proposals in the pre-Budget report to further control public sector pay, and such posts are part of that exercise. I have made the point that the information is kept on websites, but perhaps we can tie those websites into this process and make them clearer. I take the point that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome about the Ulster Defence Regiment. The motion is to update the schedule to the 1975 Act, rather than the Act itself, but I imagine that it will have to be tidied up at some point. However, we do not have to be concerned about posts that disappear, because people cannot be in them to be disqualified from being in the House of Commons. This exercise is really just to tidy up the list, but if there are any anomalies we will need to take a view on when the Act needs to be updated. I shall certainly do that. The process of considering when an office holder has to resign should be clear. I understand that the Cabinet Office gives guidance to candidates at the point of their potential resignation because of disqualification. Another point that we have not touched on is that parliamentary candidates may not be successful, after which they can be reconsidered. For candidates who were members of NHS trusts, in the civil service or office holders in any of the relevant posts, there is guidance on how they can be taken back into their post. I understand that the only problem would be if a parliamentary candidate had been so controversial and had taken such positions that they were no longer considered fit for office, but that is a very small consideration.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
505 c984 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
House of Commons Disqualification Mental illness Pay Members Non-departmental public bodies Offices of profit under the Crown
Legislation
House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk