HL Deb 02 November 1994 vol 558 cc837-41
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill)

My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. The report is comparatively brief and I shall be similarly brief in introducing its main points. The first recommendation is that the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, which until now has been experimental, should become a sessional committee and that there should be consequential amendment to Standing Orders. In view of the excellent work which the committee has already done, I imagine that that recommendation will be warmly welcomed.

The report also records that the Procedure Committee has considered the text of a thoroughly revised edition of the Companion to the Standing Orders which it is hoped will be published early in the new year.

Finally, the committee has decided to undertake a full review of the practice of the House in relation to declaration of interests. That review will include consideration of whether the House should introduce a system of registration of interests.

Moved, That the Fourth Report from the Select Committee be agreed to (HL Paper 92).—(The Chairman of Committees.)

Following is the report referred to:

ORDERED TO REPORT:

1. DELEGATED POWERS SCRUTINY COMMITTEE

In 1992 the Select Committee on the Committee Work of the House proposed that a Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee should be established "on a limited and experimental scale in the first instance" (HL Paper 35-I, Session 1991–92, paragraph 133(i)). This Committee endorsed that recommendation in its 1st Report, Session 1992–93, and the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee was accordingly appointed in November 1992 and re-appointed this session. The 12th Report of this session from the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee (HL Paper 90) accordingly reviews the work of the Committee and invites this Committee to recommend that it should become a sessional committee from next session. The Committee has been a notable success, and this Committee has no hesitation in recommending that it should become a sessional committee from next session. In consequence, the Committee should be added to the list of committees in Standing Order 62 (thus empowering the old Committee to meet at the beginning of a new session prior to the re-appointment of the Committee); and the rotation rule should be applied to the Committee (though the committee of Selection will wish to phase in its application so as to avoid a complete change of membership after three years). The Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee asked this Committee to consider its recommendation "that the House seeks a mechanism to ensure that Acts passed by Parliament are brought into operation" (HL Paper 90, paragraph 38). The Committee will look at this matter and report separately to the House.

2. COMPANION TO THE STANDING ORDERS

The Committee has considered and approved a draft new edition of the Companion to the Standing Orders. It is proposed that the text should be finalised this year and that the new edition should be available before the House resumes in January. New editions of the Standing Orders relating to Public Business and the Brief guide to the procedure and practice of the House of Lords will be made available at the same time.

3. PASSING BETWEEN THE LORD SPEAKING AND THE WOOLSACK

In the course of considering the text of the new edition of the Companion, the Committee noted that the guidance (on page 36 of the present edition) that "No Lord may pass between the Woolsack (or the Chair) and any Lord who is speaking, nor between the Woolsack and the Table" is frequently not observed. The Committee takes this opportunity to remind the House of these well-established customs.

4. APPLICATION OF THE ROTATION RULE

The Committee has agreed that the rotation rule should apply to the Advisory Panel on Works of Art in the same way as to sub-committees of the House of Lords' Offices Committee, and that its application to the Standing Orders (Private Bills) Committee should be modified so as to require the retirement of one member each session.

5. DECLARATION AND REGISTRATION OF INTERESTS

The Leader of the House suggested in the House on 25 October that this Committee might examine the question of a register of members' interests in this House (Official Report, col. 471). The Committee has accordingly considered the existing guidance on declaration of interests (laid down by the Committee in its 2nd Report, Session 1989–90) and has decided to undertake a full review of the practice of the House. This review will include consideration of the question whether the House should introduce a system of registration of interests. The Committee will report further when its review is complete.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, I welcome very warmly that part of the report which refers to the declaration and registration of interests. I believe that many in your Lordships' House will feel that it is important that we should be seen to be examining that question ourselves without waiting for any report from the Nolan Committee for any consideration by the Committee on Privileges in another place. Those matters are our responsibility and we must take them seriously from the outset.

I have only one quibble in relation to the wording of the report; namely, that it refers merely to the declaration of interests and to the possibility of a system of registration of interests. I hope that it is understood— I am sure it is—that the implications of a declaration of interest might be that there would be regulations restricting the power of Members who have declared an interest to take part in a debate or vote on the issue in question. I hope that that will form part of the review.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, the report is extremely interesting. I am sure that the whole House will welcome the recommendation in relation to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. As to the declaration and registration of Members' interests, I ask my noble friend whether what is under consideration applies to all Members of your Lordships' House or only to those who take an active part in its proceedings. It is an open question as to why Peers who do not take part in our debates—and there are a good many of them—should be called upon to register or declare their interests. That is a difficult question. I shall be interested to hear the Government's thinking on the matter.

Lord Bruce of Donington

My Lords, following upon the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I venture to put forward some matters with regard to declaration and registration of interests which arise purely because of developments which have taken place in the past 20 years. During that time, and more particularly in the past 15 years, members of the Government and, indeed, those noble Lords who are active Members of this House have been discussing not only legislation originating in the United Kingdom but also that originating in the European Economic Community.

There are Members of the House who derive a direct and continuing benefit, often of a substantial nature, relating to, for example, set-aside receipts which entitle land owners to very large sums of money in respect of their holdings provided that they comply with certain regulations. It may be desirable (indeed, they may themselves desire) to declare an interest when matters in relation to those interests are being debated or, indeed, when legislation in relation to them is under consideration by the Government.

I know perfectly well that it has been a convention for many years that members of the Cabinet, for example, are not required to disclose interests in land or any receipts that emanate from it. There must be quite a number of members of the Cabinet who are in receipt of substantial sums as a result of CAP legislation who nevertheless do not declare their interest.

Of course, it is entirely a matter for every noble Lord and his conscience. But I hope sincerely that some consideration may be given by the Procedure Committee to making a recommendation that where any Member receives substantial benefits which result directly from legislation under consideration from the European Community he should declare it. If it is of a quasi-permanent nature, it should be on the register of interests.

Lord Monks well

My Lords, I also welcome the report and in particular paragraph 5 which relates to consideration of a register of Members' interests. I believe that this House should treat the subject rather differently from the way it is treated by the other place. One of the strengths of this House is the individual knowledge noble Lords bring to the House as a result of their interests. We should bear in mind that some noble Lords have very public interests which are widely known in the public domain. Their contributions to your Lordships' House can be judged on that basis. But other noble Lords may have interests and knowledge which are not so widely known about in the public domain. We do ourselves a disservice by not necessarily knowing about that and not being able to put proper weight on the contributions which those noble Lords may be able to make.

Therefore, a register of Members' interests which includes not just pecuniary interests but also non-pecuniary interests associated with knowledge in a particular sphere might be useful and beneficial to your Lordships' House and its considerations. I make a plea that the committee should bear in mind those points and take them on board.

Lord Harmar-Nicholls

My Lords, it would be very sad indeed if we were to accept the idea of a register of Members' interests as distinct from the declaration of those interests, which is another matter. It is vital to declare an interest when the discussions taking place affect everybody. That should be continued and, if need be, strengthened. We should find a way to deal with people who have made contributions without making the necessary declaration. But a register is bureaucratic interference with the honour of Members of both Houses. I never agreed that there should be such a register in another place.

If we reach the level at which the searchlight of a register is required because Members are not capable of declaring properly and fully their interests, they should be deprived of the prefix of "honourable" Member or "noble" Member.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, if one has an interest and declares it, what is the purpose of having a register?

Lord Marsh

My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord a question before he rises to speak again. As I understand it, a review is to be carried out by the committee. Therefore, I do not propose to argue the issue about which I feel most strongly in some respects. Can the noble Lord give an indication of the type of review which will be carried out and confirm that that will in fact enable Members of the House, on all sides, to make their views known—views which are very different and, in some cases, not simply a matter of yes or no?

The Chairman of Committees

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have chosen to speak briefly on the matter. However, I fear that I may disappoint all of them. It would be quite wrong for me at this stage to do other than reassure the House that the investigation which is to take place will be very wide and very, very thorough.

Following the meeting of the Procedure Committee, I looked back to the last occasion when the matter was considered with great thoroughness in 1974. An immense amount of time and trouble was then taken to look at the two matters. Particular note was taken of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls; namely, the great difference between declaration and registration. The sub-committee of the Procedure Committee met on no fewer than eight occasions. Indeed, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, may remember that he appeared before it as a witness.

Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone

Yes I do.

The Chairman of Committees

My Lords, I believe that the noble and learned Lord is the only Member of the House present in the Chamber today who did so. It was an immensely thorough investigation. I have every reason to believe that that which will follow in the next Session will be equally thorough. I hope that the House will allow me to leave the matter there.

I also hope that I have satisfied the worries expressed most fully by the noble Lord, Lord, McIntosh of Haringey, in the Procedure Committee itself. The committee will go into the matter that he particularly mentioned. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, made the point about whose interests were involved. I can tell the noble Lord that that is a matter which I believe we can safely leave to the committee. I trust that there is no further question which any noble Lord feels that I should answer.

Perhaps I may conclude on a personal note. No matter who cares to investigate the manner in which the House conducts its business, it will be shown that your Lordships do so with the highest integrity.

Lord Marsh

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he perhaps go slightly further on the matter? Since 1974, which is 20 years ago, we now have a group of Cross-Benchers of close on 280 Members who have no access to the normal channels. The committee may feel that what was a thorough-going examination 20 years ago is not quite so adequate today.

The Chairman of Committees

My Lords, I do not know whether things have changed to that extent. However, I naturally accept the point that there are now 275—or perhaps even more—Cross-Benchers, which was certainly not the case at that time. Indeed, there were fewer than 100 when I joined the House 18 years ago. That point will be taken up by the committee. In fact, everything that has been said this afternoon will obviously be taken up by the committee. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, can rest assured on that point.

On Question, Motion agreed to.