§ Mr. SpeakerLast Thursday, in response to requests from hon. Members, I undertook to give further consideration to the question of Members' interests. There are three matters which it would be helpful for me to make clear to the House.
The first relates to the declaration of the interests of Members' children in the Register of Members' Interests. In the introduction to the last published register, the registrar states that Members are not required to disclose
the interests of spouses or children, except in certain circumstances relating to shareholdings".The rule about registering shareholdings is confined to the holdings of infant children. There is, therefore, no interest to register in the case referred to by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours).The second matter concerns the declaration of interests in the House. I reaffirm what I said last Thursday. It is contrary to our practice for interests to be declared during questions and answers.
Finally, I remind the House that the events to which reference was made on Thursday took place in 1981. I am not aware that anything has taken place in the present Parliament which is contrary to the rules of the House governing direct declarations of interests. Those rules have not changed between the last Parliament and the present one. Comment on what took place in a previous Parliament is not a matter for the Chair.
§ Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I submit a new point of order in the light of the ruling that you have made today? You have referred to the Register of Members' Interests, but my point of order on Thursday was far more closely related to declarations of interest to the House, and specifically to the Prime Minister's decision not to declare an interest directly after my hon. Friends the Members for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) and for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) had put their questions but before she replied.
Paragraph 293(3) of the "Manual of Procedure" says:
A declaration should be made where appropriate at the beginning of most oral interventions in proceedings. This covers participation in debate in the House or in standing committee and at meetings of select committees, where a Member is required to declare his interest before putting a question to a witness and before the commencement of an inquiry, in order to cover the committee's deliberative proceedings.Then it states:It is not necessary to declare an interest before asking a supplementary question.That is the basis on which I understand that you, Mr. Speaker, have made your ruling today. I put it to you, however, that if the termmost oral interventions in proceedingsis so specific that it excludes specific oral intervention by asking a supplementary question—in other words, it is not required to declare an interest in asking a supplementary question — it must surely include oral answers. One must differentiate between an oral answer and an oral question. An oral answer is a statement to the House of Commons. Surely it is not in order for a Minister making a statement or giving an answer to the House to claim the rights and privileges which can be attributed to an oral question.25 I shall illustrate how I differentiate between the question and the statement by referring to the intervention of the Minister for Health on glue sniffing on 15 December 1983. He was referring to a written answer which had been referred to by some as a statement. He said:
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is indeed true that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security today answered a written question from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) about glue sniffing. That was the intended statement of policy that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I had in mind. I am sorry if the use of the word "statement" misled the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) into believing that it meant an oral statement, but I believe that one can find plenty of precedents for the repeated use of the word "statement" to mean written or oral statements to the House."—[Official Report, 15 December 1983; Vol. 50, c. 1179.]What I am saying is that, the moment the right hon. Lady the Prime Minister stood at that Dispatch Box, she was making an oral statement in reply to an oral question. As such, that oral statement cannot claim the privileges that relate to an oral question.
There is another precedent. It is a question that I believe was put down orally on 3 March 1981 by the late Sir Graham Page, in which he asked the Prime Minister whether she would make a statement about Lord Diplock's first report on the interception of communications in Great Britain. She did so. She replied. Therefore she made a statement. She referred to
Lord Diplock's first report as monitor of the arrangements for interception". — [Official Report, 3 March 1981; Vol. 1000, c. 64.]I will not go into the details of the reply. All these precedents—there are many of them, and indeed, the Minister for Health refers to the precedents — clearly wished to differentiate between questions and answers. If that is the case, surely it is in order for hon. Members who feel strongly about this matter to ask you, Mr. Speaker, once again having looked at this matter from the basis of a question, to reconsider the position with a view to establishing whether it would be the same if my original point or order had related specifically to an answer or statement.
§ Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop (Tiverton)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the case that the House has never enforced the order on the declaration of interests against its own Members? There is, in fact, at least one right hon. Member who refuses to comply with the Standing Order as to the Register of Members' Interests, and the House has taken no action to enforce that order.
Is it not, moreover, the case, Mr. Speaker, that, if Members were required to declare in the register or in debate the interests of adult children, that could not be done unless the House made an order, which it has never made, requiring adult children to declare their interests to their parents? Without that, their parents could not be under an obligation to declare an interest. I should have thought that that follows as night follows day. If the House wants to extend the existing rules on declaration of interests, it should surely start by enforcing them against its own Members.
§ Mr. Brian Sedgemore (Hackney, South and Shoreditch)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. While I think that it is fairly clear that a Member is not required to declare an interest on the basis upon which you have ruled, I wonder whether the House has envisaged 26 circumstances in which Members might like to seek to uphold the honour and integrity of public life by declaring their children's interests?
If I could refer it to you, Mr. Speaker, paragraph 53 of the Select Committee's report on Members' interests states:
It will also, of course, be perfectly possible for a Member, if he or she thought it right and relevant to do so, to disclose any particular interest held by his wife or her husband or children.In my respectful submission, Mr. Speaker, where the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) goes wrong is that he does not recognise that in this case last week military sources confirmed diplomatic sources that the Prime Minister knew about the particular interest involved in this case. Therefore, I respectfully submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that through you, she ought to be encouraged to make a voluntary declaration or, if she does not want to do that it might be right for the House to consider reconvening the Select Committee on Conduct of Members to inquire into what happened.
§ Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West)Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. As one of those who raised the matter on Thursday, I am grateful to you for the careful consideration that you have given to these matters. I should like to ask whether you would be prepared to give further consideration to the matters that have been raised today, especially by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). Those matters are most important for guidance to hon. Members and also for refining and clarifying the precedents upon which registration and the declaration of interests should be made. We must draw a very careful distinction between the registration of interests upon which hon. Members take various views and the declaration of interests in the House during its proceedings.
I repeat the part of the 1980 edition of the "Manual of Procedure" to which my hon. Friend drew attention:
A declaration should be made where appropriate at the beginning of most oral interventions in proceedings.We are asking, Mr. Speaker, whether you will consider whether written replies and replies to oral questions constitute statements. If they do—
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursThey do.
§ Mr. MaddenIf they do, Mr. Speaker, after you have considered those matters, it would follow that, in future, declarations of interests would appropriately be made when such statements were made to the House.
The circumstances have been made exceptionally difficult because of the refusal of the Table Office in recent days to accept questions on those matters. Hon. Members have been left with no other option but to raise them at Question Time. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Pure malice."] Therefore, we believe that if a statement relating to those matters is made by a Minister—whether it is the Prime Minister or any other Minister—a declaration of interest would be justified. I hope that you will be able to give further consideration to those matters, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. Ron Davies (Caerphilly)Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Given the evident determination of the Prime Minister not to make a statement in the House and understanding your previous ruling, would it not be of enormous benefit to the House, the Prime Minister and the country if Mr. Mark Thatcher made a statement on the matter?
§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. In your ruling you mentioned three different reasons, the last of which was that you could not be held responsible for what happened in a previous Parliament. We all understand that. You will appreciate, however, that at the time of the case of Reginald Maudling, arising out of the Poulson affair, the bankruptcy and so on, a Select Committee dealt with the matter and reported to the House. A vote was taken in the House. That was in a different Parliament from the one that was sitting when the events took place. Some of the occurrences in the Poulson affair took place over a much longer period. Therefore, I should have thought that there were circumstances in which what happened in a previous Parliament was bound to affect the next Parliament.
One of the reasons why we consider that it is important that a statement is made is in respect of the amount of money that Mark Thatcher received.
§ Mr. Albert McQuarrie (Banff and Buchan)How does the hon. Gentleman know how much he received?
§ Mr. SkinnerFor instance, the late Tony Crosland might have been called upon to divulge the fact that he got a silver coffee pot worth a3 few pounds. In the Reginald Maudling case, his son Martin was involved. The Select Committee referred to Martin Maudling at length, not because he had received a small amount of money, but because he was a director of OSB and ITCS. It would be helpful if we could ascertain how much Mark Thatcher received. If he received a six-figure sum, as has been suggested, I and many other hon. Members believe that a statement should be made in view of the connection between Mrs. Thatcher's lobbying and her son acting as a consultant.
§ Mr. Peter Shore (Bethnal Green and Stepney)Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. These are serious and sensitive issues, and I am grateful to you for your careful statement. As your statement covered three separate aspects of the matter, you will not be surprised that a number of supplementary questions have been asked and that we will want to give the matter a great deal of serious consideration. I hope that in turn you will give further consideration to the important point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) who began the supplementary questions.
In the meantime, can you, Mr. Speaker, confirm that you have made your ruling solely on the basis of the relevant resolutions and precedents of the House and that, like the rest of us, you had no access to any facts or purported facts in this case, including whether Mr. Mark Thatcher joined the Prime Minister in Oman and whether any financial consideration was involved in his relationship with the firm of Cementation Ltd.? Can you confirm also that the matters that have been raised with you involve the rules of conduct of Ministers of the Crown just as much as, if not more than, other hon. Members and that responsibility and accountability for the conduct of Ministers of the Crown lie with the Prime Minister and not with you, Mr. Speaker?
The Select Committee, which in December 1974 produced the rules upon which the declaration of Members' interests are made and to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) referred, specifically envisaged circumstances outside the rules where 28
It will be…possible for a Member, if he or she thought it right and relevant to do so, to disclose any particular interest held by his wife or her husband or children.Although we will want to consider further the implications of your ruling and considerations of change in the compilation of the Register of Members' Interests, is it not plain, Mr. Speaker, that the resolution of those important questions requires that a statement be made now by the Prime Minister, and that it is right and relevant for her to do so?
§ Mr. SpeakerI must say to the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and other hon. Members who have raised points of order that I went into this matter as the House would expect me to go into it —with immense care. It is my duty to uphold the rules of the House as they are. My statement was based squarely upon the Register of Members' Interests and the nine specific classifications under which hon. Members are required to register their interests. I do not believe that there would be any merit in my making a statement beyond that. Those are the rules as they exist. I believe that the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) said that if the House wishes to change the rules it has the remedy in its hands.
§ Mr. Ioan Evans (Cynon Valley)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. It can do so. It is my duty to uphold the rules as they are.
There is a distinction between the Register of Members' Interests and ministerial register. I regret that I know nothing about the latter, as I have never been a Minister. It is not for me to interpret it, nor have I any knowledge of what those interests are. I cannot go further than I have gone today.
§ Mr. Ioan EvansOn a further point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that when the matter was first raised, reference was made to The Observer article in which allegations were made against the Prime Minister, that her son was involved in financial dealings. You, and later the Leader of the House, said that there would be other opportunities for this matter to be raised in the House.
Can you advise us, Mr. Speaker, how the matter can be raised? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) has said, it is the Prime Minister who is responsible for the conduct of Ministers. Yet questions have been put to the Prime Minister and she has repeatedly refused to answer the allegations, which, as far as we know, may be wrong. The fact that she is not willing to deny the allegations makes everyone think that there is someting in them. Will you give us a ruling on how we can raise this matter in the House so that the Prime Minister can make a statement to clear up the position?
§ Mr. SpeakerIt is not my function to advise hon. Members on tactics. I am sure that many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mr. Evans), who has been a Member for as long as I have, know that there are numerous opportunities to raise these matters on the Floor of the House.
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursOn a further point of order, Mr. Speaker. In making your remarks to the House you did not reply specifically to the grounds for my new point 29 of order—that there was a difference between what I submitted today and my case to you the other day, when we were referring specifically to parliamentary questions. Today's point of order relates to a parliamentary answer or perhaps a statement. Will you consider accepting my application and returning to the House in a few days with a view to commenting upon the way I have sought to differentiate between those two different parliamentary terms?
§ Mr. SpeakerThat is a matter of interpretation. I shall look carefully at the hon. Member's points. On Thursday, the hon. Member asked me a different question. He is now distinguishing between what is an answer to a question and what is a parliamentary statement. As far as I know, it has never been the practice of Mr. Speaker or the House to call on hon. Members to declare an interest at Question Time, but I accept that it is occasionally done. I have heard some hon. Members say that they represent a union or that they have an interest in some type of company. The main register of interests is kept in the Register of Members' interests, the latest edition being 17 January 1983. I shall examine what the hon. Member has said, but I do not believe that I can add much to what I have already said today.
§ Mr. Alan Williams (Swansea, West)On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker. It might be helpful to the House if the Leader of the House, after time for consideration, were to make a statement to the House on the rules relating to ministerial conduct.
§ Mr. SpeakerIf the Leader of the House is not prepared or anxious to do so, there is nothing I can do about it. I can go no further than I have on this matter today.