HL Deb 17 July 2001 vol 626 cc1377-9

3.5 p.m.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

asked the Leader of the House:

Whether the Register of Interests now to be prepared is to be made available for public comment; and whether entries relating to spouses, relatives or friends are to be made without written consent of those concerned.

The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn)

My Lords, the new register will be a public document, as is the current register. Written consent will not be a requirement for entries relating to spouses, relatives and friends, but I suggest that it would be a normal courtesy to inform any persons before entering details about them in the register.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, in thanking the noble and learned Lord for that reply, may I ask how our courts will restrain unjustified comment or unauthorised entries into a register that will be available worldwide on the Internet and to the press? As probity is not in issue, perhaps I may also ask whether the mandatory disclosure of the interests of spouses, relatives and friends is not incompatible with the convention as a want of respect for private and family life? Why do we not implement the suggestion put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, and reach a joint decision as to registration which affects so many private rights?

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, it is difficult for me to contemplate the notion of an unauthorised entry into the register because, plainly, only noble Lords will be entitled to place any entries on to it. I think that the registrar would be able to recognise any interloper.

As regards the courts, the noble Lord knows that the normal rules of defamation would apply. If defamatory material is disseminated, then any citizen has the right to institute proceedings in the libel courts.

With regard to Article 8 of the convention, which covers the right to private and family life, again, the noble Lord will know that a balancing is introduced in the second part of that article on—I shall paraphrase generally here—public interest grounds. I believe, and the House endorsed this, that these disclosures are in the public interest.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord tell the House what would happen if a friend refused permission?

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, exactly the same as would happen at the moment. Noble Lords well know that the obligation has been in place since 1995. That followed the Griffiths report, which was accepted by the House. However, as I said in response to the noble Lord who put the Question, the permission of the friend is not required. It is the duty of your Lordships to make the declaration in exactly the same way as if I were a major shareholder in a large company. I would not have to seek the permission of that company to make the disclosure.

Lord Renton

My Lords, bearing in mind that Clause 12 requires us to declare the interests of our relatives, can I ask the noble and learned Lord to bear in mind that I have never dared to ask those two daughters of mine, who make good incomes, how much they earn and that I have no intention of doing so?

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, Section 12 does not require mandatory registration. It states in heavy bold type, relevant financial interests may also include (depending on their significance) Plainly the incomes of the noble Lord's daughters are of great significance, but it is unlikely to be of relevance to the way in which the noble Lord would speak or vote. Indeed, perhaps I may attach an adjective to this; namely, the point put by the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth: if you do not know, you do not have to say.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil

My Lords, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord could refer back to the guidance he gave on 2nd July to a point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner? When he has taken a good look at it, perhaps he would arrange an early opportunity to come back to the House to explain to noble Lords what on earth it meant.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, yes and yes.

Lord Acton

My Lords, I believe that my noble and learned friend is aware that I have rather a large number of relations, some of whom are Members of this House. For example, like myself, both the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, and the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, have Cecil blood flooding through our veins. I apologise for mentioning their names in their absence. Is it incumbent on me to declare, for example, the relevant interests of the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne? Do I have to learn them off by heart? What is the system?

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, we are always fortunate that we can choose our friends and not our relatives. The interests of the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne—modest as they are—would already have been declared by him.

Lord Strathclyde

My Lords, has the noble and learned Lord had an opportunity to reconsider what he said in the debate on 2nd July? He said that this code of practice was a "light touch"? Is it not in fact a blunt instrument?

Lord Williams of Mostyn

No, my Lords. It is intended to be, and is in fact, a light touch. A number of your Lordships said that they did not want an independent investigator such as they have at the other end of the Palace. We avoided that. Indeed, it will be recalled that the principle of mandatory declaration was the universal recommendation of the group which I had the honour to chair, on which sat two Conservative Peers nominated by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. I repeat—not for the last time, I know—that the present situation obtains on the Griffiths recommendations in respect of declaration, which were put into effect in 1995. Those recommendations were endorsed by the House.

The Earl of Onslow

My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that I have absolutely no intention of writing down anything about the money of my friends, relations or whoever it may be? If that happens, will I be hauled off to the Tower or called in front of the Committee for Privileges?

Several noble Lords

Yes!

The Earl of Onslow

My Lords, all I hope is that I will be treated with as much comfort in the Tower as some people were in previous times. Having said that, what is the penalty concerning the requirement to fill in a piece of paper which—I am very sorry—I believe to be an extraordinarily stupid instruction?

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, the noble Earl must come to his own conclusion. He asked whether he should go to the Tower of London or be complained of here. I entirely agree with him that punishment before trial is probably appropriate for him. One sanction, as was said, is that there would be a naming and shaming. Your Lordships have alternative sanctions. We have the sanction, very rarely used, that it is moved that a noble Lord be no longer heard.

However, I would observe that we had a very full debate and the House voted by a majority to support the code of conduct.

A noble Lord

By a majority of three.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

To paraphrase, a majority of one is sufficient. Three is ample.