§ Mr. Jack Straw (Blackburn)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I raise a point of order relating to voting on the Lloyd's Bill, of which I gave notice to you and to the right hon. Member for Crosby (Sir G. Page), who is steering the Bill through the House. I seek your guidance whether Members of the House who are members of Lloyd's have a direct pecuniary interest that is immediate and personal such as to require them not to vote on the Bill, whether for or against it.
On 9 December last year, the Chairman of Ways and Means said that as he was a member of Lloyd's, a fact that is recorded in the Register of Members' Interests,
it would be undesirable for me to discharge, in relation to the Lloyd's Bill, the various duties which the House imposed upon the Chairman of Ways and Means".Although I accept that his position is somewhat different from that of ordinary Members, I believe that the principle is the same, and that other Members of the House who are members of Lloyd's should act in a similar way and not vote. However, I read in today's Financial Times that the right hon. Member for Crosby has issued a statement saying that he does not think that a member of Lloyd's need refrain from voting for fear of a challenge that his vote would be disqualified.At page 407 of "Erskine May" we are told:
it is a rule that no Member who has a direct pecuniary interest in a question shall be allowed to vote upon it: but, in order to operate as a disqualification, this interest must be immediate and personal, and not merely of a general or remote character".There are 53 Members of the House who are members of Lloyd's, including 13 Government Members. Some of them are brokers or underwriting members, but most of them are names who put their total personal wealth at risk and have to show that they have £100,000 at least in unencumbered assets, and the whole of that amount is put at risk by their membership of Lloyd's. It is self-evident that their interest in Lloyd's is direct, pecuniary and, above all, immediate and personal. Indeed, nothing could be more immediate and personal than having the whole of one's personal wealth at risk.812 The Lloyd's Bill goes to the heart of the operations of the Society of Lloyd's. It not only provides for the disciplining of members by which they may lose their livelihood, but, in clause 8, it defines the liability of members of Lloyd's.
The noble Lord Salmon in the Royal Commission on Standards of Conduct in Public Life said at page 37:
the prime purpose of rules and laws requiring the declaration of interests is to enable him to separate his legitimate private interests from his official duties. The existence of such rules and laws is also a reassurance of the public that those engaged in the work of public bodies do indeed separate their private interests and public duties in the way that is expected of them".Whatever the strict legal position, there are the strongest ethical reasons for members of Lloyd's not to vote in the debate today. It would be inconsistent with the standards of public life that one expects. However, it is a case that falls fairly and squarely within the rules, and members of Lloyd's should be advised that they are likely to be disqualified if they vote for or against the Bill.
§ Sir Graham Page (Crosby)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Having studied "Erskine May", and having seen cases where the shareholders in a company have promoted a Bill and had their votes allowed—and not disallowed—in such cases, I took it upon myself, having been asked by the presenter of the Bill to move the Second Reading, to tell Members that I did not believe that their vote could be challenged.
If there is any doubt about the matter, I am happy to advise those Members who are members of Lloyd's to refrain from voting, because I am quite satisfied that the Bill will achieve its objects and will be accepted by the House on its merits.
§ Mr. SpeakerI am deeply grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks. On the question of a pecuniary interest, I am of the opinion that if any right hon. or hon. Member has the slightest doubt about the matter he should not vote. If he votes, he takes the risk that the House itself could disallow the vote afterwards. However, I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his statement, which has saved me adding anything to what he has said.