One of the by-products of the
latest chapters in the Johnson Saga has been the exposure to public view, once
again, of the Ruritanian nature of the rules of the UK parliament. Nadine
Dorries promised to resign ‘with immediate effect’ a week ago, but is now refusing
to do so until the government give her a satisfactory reason for not ennobling
her. (Apparently, demanding an explanation for failing to appoint someone as a member
of the legislature for the rest of their life is an entirely reasonable
proposition on planet Dorries.)
In fact she can’t resign, even
if and when she wants to. For reasons dating back to the days when MPs were
often appointed against their wishes, resignation from the House of Commons is
illegal. Members can, however, be expelled, and expulsion is automatic for any
MP appointed to an office of profit under the Crown unless they have first
asked the permission of the House. To facilitate the expulsion of members, two
ancient posts have been retained, and been designated as ‘offices of profit’.
It’s a strange designation for a job which has neither function nor
remuneration – non-office of non-profit would be more accurate. By tradition, only
MPs can be appointed to these jobs, and appointment results in immediate
expulsion from the House of Commons. MPs can apply to the Chancellor of the Exchequer
to be appointed to one of the jobs, and convention says that he can’t refuse.
So, for an MP, ‘resignation’ in effect amounts to applying to be expelled.
It gets better. Once a member
has been duly expelled for applying for and accepting an unpaid job with no responsibilities,
someone has to move a writ in the House of Commons for a by-election to be
called. If the majority vote for the writ (and convention, again, says that
they must do so), the Speaker informs the Returning Officer and an election is
called. Of course, a writ can only be moved and voted on if parliament is
sitting; if an MP decides not to apply for a pointless unpaid job until the
recess, the writ cannot be moved until parliament reconvenes. And all because
they allow tradition to stand in the way of the obvious approach – an ‘I quit’
letter to the Speaker followed by an automatic by-election. Still, it gives MPs
something to do and helps them feel important.
But who, in their right minds,
would devise such a silly system in the first place?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment