§ Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise a matter about the declaration of interests. On previous occasions you have been noticeably reticent — understandably so —about making a statement on declarations of interest. I draw your attention to three opinions expressed about the matter by former Speakers: in 1946 by Mr. Speaker Clifton-Brown, on 5 February 1953 by Mr. Speaker Morrison and on 12 May 1965 by Mr. Speaker Hylton-Foster. They stated what they believed constituted a declaration of interest.
I also draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to a point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). He sought guidance on
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."—[Official Report, 24 March 1981; Vol. 1, c. 811.]Mr. Speaker Thomas answered,I am of the opinion",and gave his opinion about the position in the Lobbies and whether hon. Members should vote.If there are precedents, Mr. Speaker, you may wish to make a ruling, if not today in a few days' time, on my point of order. As I understand it, the arrangements for declarations of interests are laid out in the resolution agreed by the House on 22 May 1974, which states:
That, in any debate or proceeding of the House or its committees or transactions or communications which a Member may have with other Members or with Ministers or servants of the Crown, he shall disclose any relevant pecuniary interest or benefit of whatever nature, whether direct or indirect, that he may have had, may have or may be expecting to have.If the recommendation of the Select Committee on Conduct of Members in 1977 is accepted as a definition of what constitutes a declarable interest—I remind the House that that Select Committee was hearing and taking evidence on the Poulson affairs—I shall quote directly from it.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I do not seek to hurry the hon. Member unduly, but we have important business to attend to. I ask him to come to his point of order.
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursThe Select Committee stated:
Mr. Maudling and members of his family hold shares in Poulson companies. Mr. Martin Maudling, his son, was a Director of OSB and Office Manager of ITCS. Your Committee considered it likely that these appointments were made on Mr. Poulson's initiatives to please Mr. Reginald Maudling and that the appointments should be included amongst the benefits to Mr. Maudling of the association.The word "benefits" is crucial. When the Prime Minister replied to the questions of my hon. Friends the Members for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) and for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) in the House, she should have declared a family interest, if only for commission or expenses, direct or indirect, in Cementation Ltd. She should have done so when she rose at the Dispatch Box to reply to my hon. Friends' questions. I submit to the House that the word "proceedings" covered the statements made by the Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box and, therefore, she had a duty to the House to make 1073 the position clear. It is clear from statements coming from Downing street that her press secretary — our friend Bernard Ingham—is pursuing a strange course of action in relation to requests for information about the contract.My point of order is that any commission or expenses, direct or indirect, to Mark Thatcher or his associates is equivalent to the appointment of Maudling's son, as referred to in the 1977 recommendation. Both are "benefits" to the Members of Parliament concerned and should be declared.
§ Mr. Brian Sedgemore (Hackney, South and Shoreditch)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday I wrote a three-page letter to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister may have inadvertently misled the House at Question Time on Tuesday when she prayed in aid the right of privacy for her son. She prayed in aid paragraph 10 of the report of the Select Committee on Members' Interests, during the session 1974–75. The Prime Minister must know that the principles governing the conflict or potential conflict for Ministers regarding interests and the interests of their family are not set out in that Select Committee report. They are laid down in a memorandum submitted by the then Secretary to the Cabinet in 1975 to the Royal Commission on standards of conduct in public life.
If those principles are applied to what my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) said, the Prime Minister has an interest which should be declared in the Register of Interests. I have looked at the Register of Interests for the relevant period but she has not declared an interest.
I respectfully ask you, Mr. Speaker, to rule either that the Prime Minister declares an interest or that there has been some terrible misunderstanding, or perhaps that the House should reconvene the Select Committee on Conduct of Members to consider the matter.
§ Mr. SpeakerI did not receive notice of the point of order from the hon. Member for Workington, but I have taken careful account of what he said. I take issue with him 1074 over his statement that I have been reticent on matters of Members' interests. As he knows, it has never been necessary at Question Time for right hon. and hon. Members to declare interests. To take as wide a sphere of interests as hon. Members have suggested today would widen the Register enormously. I should think that many hon. Members have members of their families who are in businesses, or who have shareholdings, and none of us knows exactly what these are.
§ Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was a member of the Select Committee on Members' Interests that considered the matters referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). I ask you seriously to consider his point of order, and you might wish to study Hansard so that you can consider carefully what he said. The Select Committee spent a long time considering those points, and its recommendations were made with great care. I urge you to look at what has been said with a view to making a statement to the House, perhaps next week. You should also examine the report of the Select Committee and consider the evidence on which its recommendations were supported.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. As we have an important debate to follow, we shall not take this matter further today. I shall do as the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) suggests. I am the defender of the rights of Back-Bench Members, and I shall consider carefully what the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) said. It was not my recollection when I was concerned with the Register that it had anything to do with the interests of one's family, but I shall examine it.