§ Lords Amendments considered.
§ 3.44 p.m.
§ Mr. William Hamilton (Fife, West)On a point of order. I apologise Mr. Speaker, for the length of the point of order and I hope that you will allow me to develop it, since it is of some importance.
Hon. Members of all parties will this morning have received from the Burmah Oil Company an aide memoire in which reference is made on page 7, to stockholders' votes in the House of Lords. I quote from the last paragraph, which states:
In any case, a stockholding in a company does not preclude a Member of either House of Parliament from voting where matters affecting that company are concerned".The last sentence states:It is our understanding on the basis of inquiries, that a stockholding is not a pecuniary interest".It is the custom of this House, though not laid down formally in our rules of procedure, that hon. Members should declare their personal interest when matters are being debated in which they have a financial interest. If any hon. Member votes on such a matter his vote may be invalidated. That was, I understand, the Ruling of Mr. Speaker Morrison, in the 1952–53 Session, and which will be found in the OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 510, c. 2040.An earlier Ruling of Mr. Speaker Abbot, of 17th July, 1811, was that there must be a "direct pecuniary interest". His Ruling included these words:
… separately belonging to the persons whose votes are questioned".If the Lords Amendments to this Bill are accepted the effect will be that the Burmah Oil Co. will be able to obtain more than £30 million from the public purse. [HON. MEMBERS: "No"]. I am submitting this point of order because I consider it to be of some importance.The two parts of the point of order I wish to put to you, Mr. Speaker, are these. First, there are in this House—as there are in the other place—many Burmah Oil shareholders, not all of whom 525 will have the time or perhaps the inclination to speak in this debate. Is there any means by which they may be given an opportunity to declare their interest, even though they may not speak in the debate? Secondly, would you give a Ruling as to whether their shareholding constitutes a direct pecuniary interest within the terms of the 1811 Ruling and, if so, how is such an interest defined?
§ Mr. SpeakerI am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. It might be best to clear away the last point he raised first. In the light of many precedents, this being a Bill dealing with general public policy, I could not accept a Motion to disallow a vote on the basis solely that the hon. Member in question was a shareholder in the company. It would not be open to me to do that, consistently with precedent. If hon. Members are interested, they will find the material precedents gathered around about page 438 of Erskine May.
On the other point raised by the hon. Gentleman, I would not wish to do more than repeat the substance of the Ruling of my predecessor, Mr. Speaker Morrison, to which he referred. The reference is in the OFFICIAL REPORT for the Session 1952–53 in Vol. 510, c. 2040. My predecessor said—and this relates to the House of Commons:
There is a custom whereby hon. Members, in making speeches, if they have an interest, declare it. I think myself that that has grown up as a matter of custom because hon. Members desire to be frank with their fellow Members, and it is sometimes a matter of prudence, in case an hon Member should be suspected of unavowed motives. But the rule of the House—I am dealing only with that—is with regard only to votes of hon. Members."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th February, 1953; Vol. 510, c. 2040.]I do not think that for the guidance of the House I could add anything more. It is a matter of custom for hon. Members to declare their interests, including shareholdings if that arises.
§ Mr. HamiltonThere is one point, Mr. Speaker, which you may not have covered, or which, if you did, I must have missed. If an hon. Member has a shareholding and if he would normally declare it if he were called to speak—and since he would not get an opportunity to declare it if he were not called to speak, or if he did not choose to speak—would you say whether such an hon. 526 Member might or might not be given an opportunity merely to rise and say that he was a Burmah Oil Company shareholder, but that he had no wish to take part in the debate?
§ Mr. SpeakerOur custom has never extended to that kind of public confession.
§ Mr. William Yates (The Wrekin)This is a very serious matter, because to our knowledge—certainly to my knowledge—certain trade unions themselves from time to time take holdings, not only in property but also in equity shares. What is the position of an hon. Member on either side of the House who is an official of such a union or who subscribes to that union? Is he not obliged, as a member of such a union, to declare that the union itself holds large reserve funds in the matter which might be under discussion?
§ Mr. SpeakerNo. The same principle about self-confession would apply there.