§ Q1. Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the increasing number of hon. Members being remunerated by outside bodies, he will re-examine the desirability of legislation to establish a public register of such interests.
§ The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson)The Government are continuing to watch the position, but I think that, in the future as in the past, it would be right to rely on hon. Members to make their position clear in any case which affected their responsibilities to the House and to party colleagues.
§ Mr. HamiltonDoes my right hon. Friend recollect that on 15th October last year he answered a similar Question to the effect that the Government were urgently inquiring into this matter but 210 were not yet in a position to make a statement? Meanwhile, we have had disclosures by Mr. Cecil King and others which show the great urgency of taking special steps to inform the public of the private business of Members?
§ The Prime MinisterI remember the Answer I gave last October. We inquired into the particular case before us. I was not satisfied that that led to a case for the kind of proposals that my hon. Friend has put forward.
§ Sir D. Walker-SmithWhile not dissenting from the generality of the Prime Minister's Answer, may I ask whether he agrees that there is a great disparity between the position of hon. Members of this House, as explained in Erskine May, and the position of elected members of local authorities where the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1933, despite modification by the 1964 Act, still place very precise and rigid inhibitions on the pecuniary interests of those elected members? Would it not be well, therefore, for the House, in a dispassionate and objective way, to review its own position with a view to clarification?
§ The Prime MinisterThe right hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that there was some improvement in the position of local authority members in that respect in, I think, the 1966 Act.
§ Sir D. Walker-SmithThe 1964 Act.
§ The Prime MinisterIt may well be 1964.
Concerning the question of disparities, I have always felt that there is a disparity between the treatment of hon. Members who are directors or substantial shareholders, who invariably declare their interests, and those who may have some public relations commission on behalf of a firm. I think the right thing here, as has been said by hon. Members in all parts of the House, is that no Member should approach another Member or Minister without making his position clear so that that position can be suitably discounted. If there is a feeling that more should be done by the House—it is not a matter for the Government—certainly there could be discussions about it through the usual channels.