HC Deb 12 March 1979 vol 964 cc30-2
Mr. Cryer

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should be grateful for your guidance on the matter of Question Time. It is a convention in debates that hon. Members declare any financial interest at the beginning of a debate. I wonder whether it would not be prudent for you, Mr. Speaker, to advise hon. Members on what they should do during Question Time when they have a financial interest. For example, it may well be, in relation to question No. 17 by the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley), that he has an interest of some kind in tourism. Where that occurs, it would only be fair to the House and, more important, to those reading the record of our proceedings to see that any financial interest is declared. I know that the Register of Members' Interests has tended to fade into some degree of desuetude as there is not the easy access of publication that there should be. That lack of a declaration does not help the reputation of this House and tends to evoke criticism. To help you defend that criticism, Mr. Speaker, I would urge you to advise hon. Members to make such declarations in debates and at Question Time in this Chamber.

Mr. Speaker

It is a long-established custom in the House that a declaration of interest is not required from hon. Members during questions—only during debates.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the case that, if you had not allowed a point of order during Question Time to the Church Commissioners, question No. 26 and even possibly question No. 27 to the Secretary of State for Trade would have been reached?

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member knows that I normally do not take a point of order during Question Time. However, this point of order came at the very end of it. I doubt whether we would have taken another two questions. We might have had one.

Mr. Adley

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would have referred to the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer), but he is not worth referring to.

What protection can you, Mr. Speaker, give to Back Benchers in the following circumstances? The Under-Secretary in answer to a question referred to increasing public expenditure, whereas in my supplementary question I made it clear that I was not asking for that. What protection do we have?

Mr. Speaker

Order. I can never help any hon. Member who is dissatisfied with an answer.

Mr. Cryer

Often, Mr. Speaker, you answer points of order by saying"It has been a tradition in this House." That may well be so. I can understand your relying on that in your answer. Nevertheless there are people both outside and inside the House who recognise that improvements and adjustments need to be made. Indeed, I am sure you will recognise that Parliament, if it is to keep abreast and answer criticisms, must produce some change. How shall we effect that change if, whenever a valid point is raised about financial interests within the Chamber and the House, the answer is always"We have always done it that way, so we shall not change it "?

Mr. Speaker

Order. May I explain to the hon. Gentleman, first, that the House decided by resolution that a declaration of interest is not necessary at Question Time. As the House decided that, only the House—not I—may change the rule. The hon. Gentleman knows that I am the servant of the House. It is not for me to overrule the resolutions of the House.

Mr. Norman Atkinson

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that it must be within your recollection that last week the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) put to you a series of points about the Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security, who, the hon. Gentleman suggested, had some kind of personal interest as a result of his membership of the National Union of Public Employees. He suggested to the House that the Minister of State should declare his interest in a trade union—quite wrongly, because the Minister receives no private gain as a result of his membership of NUPE. However, here is another Member of Parliament who is directly employed to put a point of view on behalf of commercial interests to the House. The hon. Gentleman acknowledges that he receives personal profit from those interests. However, he has the brass neck to accuse the Minister of State of gaining from his membership of the union—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I have explained the position to the House.