§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. MacKay.]
8.33 pm§ Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith (Wealden)Given the limited time available for the debate, it would be wrong of me to open it with a long speech going through the recommendations of the two reports in detail. I regret the shortage of time, because the two reports are on separate and distinct issues and contain some complicated proposals. I shall give hon. Members the credit for having read the reports and of being familiar with the main points in question.
I believe that there is now general acceptance in the House of the principle that underlines the need for rules, registration and declaration of Members' financial interests. In his evidence to the Select Committee, Mr. Speaker Weatherill rightly said that there is a presumption that all Members are honourable Members. The register is not intended to cast doubt on that presumption; indeed, it is intended to reinforce it.
The House agreed to the introduction of the register in 1974–75 not because it believed that there was a significant problem of corruption among Members, but because of the belief in the need for openness or transparency in a representative democracy. In the absence of that openness, rumour and innuendo can flourish, particularly in the media.
Our behaviour and sense of integrity are important to all hon. Members, but the public perception of Members' interests and behaviour is also important. Nobody enjoys filling in the form and remembering to keep the register up to date, but I am confident that almost all Members now acknowledge the need for these procedures.
The register is a valuable protection for all hon. Members and it provides information that the public and fellow hon. Members have a reasonable right to know.
Against that background, I should like to look first at the larger of the two reports under discussion, which deals with the rules of registration and declaration. The origin of the report was the unhappy case that the House debated in March 1990. At the end of the debate, the House instructed the Select Committee on Members' Interests to review some of the general issues that the case had highlighted. When we conducted the review, we found, above all, that many hon. Members were uncertain what should be registered under the different headings laid down by the original Committee and the House in 1975.
At the same time, we were made aware of the feeling among outside commentators that the register is less informative than it should be and that there is some inconsistency of approach between Members when compiling entries. The Committee's primary objective has been to clarify the rules and to give hon. Members more explicit guidance on the registration of their interests in the future.
Some of the guidance is incorporated in the new and more detailed registration form proposed in annex 1 of the report. More detailed advice is contained in the body of the report. In part, our aim has been to standardise best current practice. I will give one example. One or two hon. Members already include in their entries a brief indication of the business of a company with which they are associated, but many do not. The consequence is that a 214 Member may register that he is a director of, say, Jones plc, but the reader of the register is no wiser unless he is told what Jones plc does. We propose that it should become standard practice for all hon. Members to include an explanation of that sort in their entries, and our recommendation about the registration of Lloyd's syndicates has a similar objective.
The Committee was concerned to make the rules more precise and thus to assist the Registrar in advising Members on the content of their entries. For example, the Committee proposed that detailed financial limits should be stipulated above which gifts, benefits or hospitality should be registered so that Members should not be obliged to register every trifling courtesy which sometimes comes their way.
There are relatively few proposals in the report which I would regard as substantial modifications of the rules, but I will draw the House's attention to one or two which some may think come into that category. We propose that the leading sponsors of an early-day motion should be required to draw attention to any relevant pecuniary interest by means of a note on the notice paper.
We also propose a change to the rule about the registration of shareholdings. Under the current rules, hon. Members are required to register only shareholdings in excess of 1 per cent. of the issued share capital of a company. The consequence is that substantial holdings in very large companies generally escape registration. The Committee therefore proposes that, in line with proposals made by the Government for local councillors, hon. Members should also be required to register any shareholding which has a nominal value in excess of £25,000. There are also other modest proposals in the report which I shall not itemise because this is a short debate.
As the minutes of our proceedings revealed, we were not able to avoid divisions entirely. Two issues caused us particular difficulty, but the Committee's discussion took place in the run-up to the general election when political tensions in the House were running high. Nevertheless, I pay tribute to my fellow members of the Committee—I am delighted to see that a considerable number are here tonight—for the constructive and co-operative spirit in which the discussions were conducted despite the distractions.
The first issue to cause us difficulty was the category of the existing form headed "Sponsorship". The 1974 Committee seems to have intended that category to apply only to the institutionalised arrangements whereby trade unions sponsored the candidacies and constituency parties of Labour Members of Parliament. Unfortunately, it did not attempt to define the term "sponsorship". Labour hon. Members now feel, with some justification, that that particular playing field is not entirely level and that there are other forms of regular financial support which are equally worthy of disclosure. The formulation in paragraphs 48 to 51 of the report is a compromise. Like most compromises, it is unlikely to satisfy anyone completely, but it is fair and it is an advance on the present vague heading.
The other issue to provoke disagreement was whether amounts of remuneration should be disclosed in the register. The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) may wish to pursue that issue later. The correct balance between the need for transparency and the individual's entitlement to a reasonable degree of privacy 215 is a difficult one to strike. The majority of the Committee saw no advantage in the disclosure of amounts of remuneration. They thought that it was not a reasonable guide to the influence that a financial interest may exert on an hon. Member because a sum that is significant to one hon. Member may be relatively insignificant to another. In any case, we must always bear it in mind that, unlike Ministers or local authority councillors, hon. Members do not have direct executive responsibilities. Therefore, on balance, we considered that the change would be an unjustified intrusion into privacy.
I stress that, although some members of the Committee would have liked certain issues to be included in the report which were not included, there was widespread agreement about what is in the report. Taken as a whole, the proposals represent a distinct step forward, and I hope that the House will support them on that basis.
I deal now with the report relating to Select Committees. Is there any reason why the Chairman and members of Select Committees should be subject to different and more rigorous rules than other hon. Members in respect of their financial interests? There is. We already accept that principle in the case of Ministers. The rules which regulate the financial interests of Ministers are, of course, Government rules rather than House rules, but their existence has served as a reassurance to the House and to the country that Ministers are not able to abuse their positions for personal financial gain.
Unlike Ministers and their Departments, Select Committees do not have powers of executive decision or action, any more than individual hon. Members. However, they perform an increasingly significant role. They have privileged access to information; Committee inquiries are regularly featured on television and individual hon. Members—and especially Committee Chairmen—enjoy a high public profile. I have no criticism of any of those developments—they help the House and do it credit—but, at the same time, they entail a need for particular vigilance to avoid any possible conflicts of interest, whether real or perceived. We consider that a positive code of conduct is now required, as it is, for example, for members of local authorities.
Taken together, the proposals in this report are intended to constitute such a code. That is why we propose that a member of a Select Committee should withdraw from any proceedings where he might reasonably be thought to be in a position to influence any decision from which he or any firm or organisation employing him might obtain a financial benefit. We also propose that anyone elected to the chairmanship of a Department-related Select Committee or the Public Accounts Committee should be required to divest himself of any pecuniary interest which might reasonably be thought to influence his judgment or be advantaged by his position as its Chairman.
In matters of that sort, the House has traditionally been content to rely on the good sense and discretion of individual hon. Members. Generally that is good enough, but not invariably. Clear guidance from the House on what is acceptable and unacceptable, where it can sensibly be given, is preferable to the uncertainties of personal judgment. The limited area of Select Committee activity is one where we think guidance can sensibly be given, and that is the purpose of the report.
216 To conclude, I shall say one or two words about the implementation of the two reports, which primarily lies within the gift of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. The debate by itself will settle nothing and will change nothing. The report on Select Committees may be of some value as guidance to the Committee of Selection and others in the weeks and months ahead, but unless the report is positively endorsed by the House, that value will be limited: Select Committee Clerks will not be able to call it in aid when asked for advice or a ruling, nor will the Members' Interests Committee be able to call it in aid if confronted with a complaint.
The same is true of the general report on registration and declaration. The existing rules and form of the register were laid down by a resolution of the House which approved the report of the Willey Committee in the Session of 1974–75. Our new report has no status or validity unless or until it is approved to supersede the existing rules.
§ Ms. Dawn Primarolo (Bristol, South)I have listened to the hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) but, in view of the importance of the report, why is there no resolution before the House so that we can vote at the end of the debate to give the report's recommendations the necessary status and to enact them?
§ Sir Geoffrey Johnson SmithThe hon. Lady was a member of the Committee and I am aware of the great contribution that she made to its work. I understand the reasons for her intervention, but her question could be better answered by the Leader of the House.
Although the report has no status unless or until it is approved to supersede the existing rules, much time and trouble has been devoted to it. I hope that with the positive encouragement of two of the Leader of the House's predecessors, it will prove not to have been wasted work. I welcome the debate as far as it goes—this is my best effort to try to meet the hon. Lady's request—but I should welcome it even more if my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House were to make it clear that it is no more than a first stage in the process of implementation. These are difficult and sensitive issues and there is every temptation not to face up to them. My right hon. Friend is widely respected by hon. Members of all parties. I am sure that he will not succumb to that temptation, although, as he is new to his present office, I can understand that he may wish to proceed with caution.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris)Before I call the Leader of the House, I must tell the House that Madam Speaker wishes it to be known that she has appealed for short speeches.
§ The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton)I can respond to some degree to what my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) just said and to Madam Speaker's appeal. I am glad to have been able to repond to the concerns expressed by a number of hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), who pressed me for a debate on these matters. I acknowledge that the hon. Member for Bradford, South 217 expressed some concern about the length of the debate in some exchanges earlier today. At any rate, we have this opportunity, which is important and valuable.
I am also glad to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden, who opened the debate in his capacity as Chairman of the Select Committee on Members' Interests in the previous Parliament. The whole House will want to join me in paying a warm tribute to his effort and to the painstaking work that he has put into that role in preparing these and other reports.
As the House understands and as I suggested in business questions last week, the background is in part the anxiety to make progress in setting up the departmental Select Committees for this Parliament. Apart from any other issue, it was sensible to give the House the chance to express its views on the report on the interests of select Committee Chairmen before that process went much further. It clearly is also right to set out consideration of the issues in that report in the wider context of the system for registering and declaring Members' interests as a whole, which is the subject of the other and rather larger report we are debating.
As the purpose of this debate—this comes directly to the point raised by the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden—is to allow for a general expression of views in the House before bringing forward any resolutions that may be appropriate, I hope that the House will feel it right for me to speak early and briefly so that we have the maximum opportunity for the expression of those views.
I make it clear that tonight I am essentially in a listening mode. Just as my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden did not think it right to go over every detail of the reports, although for slightly different reasons, I do not propose to attempt to give a firm view from the Dispatch Box on every proposal, which would pre-empt the purpose of the debate.
On the first report, it is right to say that, with regard to improving the system for registering Members' interests, anything that clarifies the working of the register and makes it easier for hon. Members to register their interests in a clear and consistent way is to be welcomed. The new form for registering Members' interests is the most obvious example of that, but I also see much merit in the proposal to invite hon. Members to say briefly what the firms in which they declare an interest are and what they do. Are they, for example, insurance brokers or building surveyors? That will be thought to be sensible by hon. Members of all parties and will be in keeping with the principles underlying the register.
As a minimum, the House will wish to see those proposals carried forward in the shape of resolutions. By saying that, I do not mean to suggest that there are not other aspects of the report—perhaps all of it—which would need to be carried forward in that way. However, I believe that it is right before deciding between the two main options—a resolution, recommended in the report, to implement the whole report and the possibility of a more complex series of resolutions reflecting doubts expessed by some hon. Members about specific recommendations—for us to have this debate. I make it clear—I hope that this will be some encouragement to the hon. Member for Bristol, South—that I have no doubt that the House will wish to see a resolution of one kind or the other.
§ Ms. PrimaroloPerhaps the Leader of the House can enlighten us. I do not understand why a debate that will have no conclusion has been allowed. Why did the Government not allow those who had reservations to table amendments to the substantive report in the normal way? We could then have had this debate and made some decision at the end of it. Instead, we shall be left with nothing at the end of the debate.
§ Mr. NewtonI understand the hon. Lady's point. Obviously a judgment has to be made case by case in such matters. It is neither unfamiliar in the House nor unreasonable—often it is the most sensible way to proceed—to test the water generally in such matters before coming forward with a set of detailed propositions. I thought that that was the most sensible way in which to proceed in this case.
§ Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will make some effort to implement the recommendations regarding the setting up of Select Committees, bearing in mind that one report has that specifically in mind? Departmental Select Committees are on the point of being established. Would it not be foolish to have a limited and narrow debate with no conclusion, when, next week or the week after, the Select Committees will be established? The rules, which the Select Committee spent a great deal of time in amending, should be brought into operation before that.
§ Mr. NewtonI was coming directly to referring generally to the second report on Select Committee Chairmen for which my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden made an eloquent case. It seems clear, both from some of the comments made subsequent to the report and from some of the comments made by those concerned with Select Committees in their evidence to the Select Committee on Members' Interests, that there is the possibility of rather greater controversy on some aspects of those proposals and perhaps an even stronger case for giving the House a general opportunity to express a view before deciding precisely how we should proceed.
I hope, incidentally, that all hon. Members would want to make it clear that, in expressing support for any of the specific proposals, no criticism is intended of Chairmen of Select Committees in the previous Parliament or in earlier Parliaments. I make three comments. First, I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden agrees that the objective of his Committee's proposal is not to remedy cases of clear abuse or cases that fall short of the standard to be expected, but rather to make an already impressive system of safeguards through the Register of Members' Interests even safer and even more clearly defensible against adverse public comment in the case of Select Committee Chairmen.
Secondly—I am glad to note the attendance in the House tonight of some of those whom I have in mind—it is right to think that the views of those who have been Chairmen of Select Committees will be of special interest to the House. I look forward to hearing their comments on the report.
Thirdly—I offer this as a tentative thought to the House —there is one question which the House may wish to consider, which was almost hinted at by my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden in his use of the word "guidelines". We could end up with some extremely complicated resolutions which were difficult to draft and 219 which, even so, contained vague words such as "reasonable". In light of comments in the report and this debate, might it not therefore be better to consider proceeding by drawing up more formal guidelines—perhaps that could be done by the Liaison Committee—rather than going down the track of having resolutions? I raise that only as a point that should be considered. I do not suggest that I have already reached a conclusion or that others have done so. However, the thought necessarily occurs on reading the report.
I shall reply briefly to the hon. Member for Bradford, South by saying simply that as we move forward in the appointment of Select Committees for the new Parliament, as I hope that we shall, all those involved will undoubtedly wish to bear in mind both what was said in the report of the Select Committee on Members' Interests and the views expressed in the House tonight.
§ Mr. Bruce Grocott (The Wrekin)I begin in a sensible way by ingratiating myself with the audience, having noted that many members of the Select Committee are about. I can say unreservedly that the reports are important and contain some useful recommendations. I hope—from what I heard from the Leader of the House it seems that it is not a hope without expectation of realisation—that formal resolutions will soon be presented to the House so that the recommendations in the report can be implemented.
I should first like to make some comments by way of an overview. I find it pleasing that the ethos of the House seems to have changed since registration of Members' interests was first suggested. When the proposal was first made, it was controversial that registration should happen at all. There is now almost universal agreement compared with when the proposal was first made in 1974. At that time, there was a great deal of debate in central and local government about registration of interests.
I remember one local authority in Bromsgrove, of which I am particularly proud, introducing a voluntary register of interests in 1972, two years before the proposal was first made in the House. I might say that that is not recognised in the Select Committee's report. There was much controversy at that time, but now it is universally acknowledged that we need a register of interests.
It is acknowledged in both of the Select Committees' reports that the register needs to be clarified, to be tougher and to ensure that the integrity of the House and Members of Parliament has respect among the public. That must be of interest to all of us. I welcome the changes in the mood of the House since registration of interests was first debated.
I also welcome the fact that both of the reports repeatedly state that if Members are in doubt they should register. If any Member of Parliament has any doubt about whether to register, or if there is any ambiguity, the onus is on that Member to ensure that the interest is registered.
§ Mr. Robert Adley (Christchurch)Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, more than anything else, the activities of the so-called parliamentary lobbying organisations have made many of us who at the beginning 220 had doubts about the register realise that there is a need for transparency? Does he agree that we should not lose sight of that as the debate proceeds?
§ Mr. GrocottThat is an important point. Whatever the reasons for the change, I am glad that the mood of the House has changed and there is universal acceptance of registration.
I begin with the report on Chairmen and members of Select Committees. We can certainly accept unequivocally what the report says. It raises issues which some of us were perhaps surprised to see spelt out. It highlighted the wide variation in practice between Select Committees in what should be declared and what should not. It accepted the need to clarify and tighten the rules. It acknowledged that there was a clear difference between the responsibilities of Chairmen of Select Committees and those of members of Select Committees. That is an important acknowledgement. It was spelt out well by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) in his evidence to the Select Committee.
The report also stressed the need for resolutions of the House to implement the findings of the report. That ought to be fairly simple now. We have identified a problem, and the Select Committee has come up with the solution and made recommendations on how to implement it. All that remains is to find parliamentary time to make resolutions to implement the report and give it the status that it needs. I urge the Leader of the House rapidly to find a date when that can be done.
The report on Select Committee Chairmen is in a way the easier report. The other report has at its heart the provision of a new form for the registration of Members' interests. I welcome much of the report, but in two or three areas common sense seems to have failed to prevail. As I said, the heart of the report is the new registration form which, by and large, makes things clearer. It is a form which we can commend to the House. I expect that a resolution will be proposed rapidly so that we can have such a form.
I welcome the recommendation that Members should be more specific about the nature of the work that companies do. That seems to be a common-sense suggestion. Moving on to the declaration of interests, it is also highly desirable that early-day motions should be included among the matters in which Members' pecuniary interests need to be declared.
I shall use my remaining time to concentrate on three areas of the report where common sense has not prevailed as it might. First, the report does not acknowledge as it should the huge discrepancy—in the public eye and that of any reasonable observer—between the way in which local government and the House are treated.
I know all the arguments that are rehearsed about local councillors making executive decisions when we do not, but I profoundly dislike the almost patronising manner that the House—or some Members; I hope that many of us are exempt—adopts towards local councillors and what they do. Councillors' work is extremely important and they are rightly subject to stringent regulations. I have no objection to that. However, the public cannot understand why councillors should be strictly regulated when there is a more relaxed regime here.
The distinction between what is and what is not executive power is not easy to sustain. The Chairman of a Select Committee and its members have power and 221 influence in areas of our national life which put them in a special category—akin to a local authority committee. The Select Committee does not make executive decisions, but it has power, influence and access. Influence and access are power in the same way as making an executive decision is power.
Any member of the public would recognise that Members of Parliament have more potential to exercise their influence than local councillors. We should look more to local government as a model for the way in which interests are recognised and registered. We should be prepared to learn from councillors rather than lecturing them as we so often do.
Secondly, the part of the report dealing with the declaration of the sums of money involved requires examination. The key quote, which I do not think would commend itself to the man on the Clapham omnibus, or the current equivalent, is in paragraph 33. The former Speaker of the House is quoted as saying:
it is the nature of the interest, not the actual sum of money, that is important.It is not common sense to say that the interest is the significant factor rather than how much it is worth. For example, one could not say that someone who worked full-time on the railways had exactly the same interest in transport as someone who worked for a preservation society on a Saturday afternoon.
§ Mr. GrocottThe hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) seems to agree. Clearly, it is the degree of interest which is important, and that can be measured only in financial terms.
§ Mr. CryerMy hon. Friend may wish to note page xxxv of the report on financial interests. When paragraph 33 was debated in Committee, I tabled an amendment proposing that the amount of money received by Members should be declared. That issue was raised in Committee, but unfortunately the amendment was defeated.
§ Mr. GrocottI read the Committee proceedings with care and I saw my hon. Friend's amendment and also that tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours).
The Committee is arguing that an ice-cream salesman is the same as someone who runs a multiple food store. It does not make any difference, provided that they are both running something, what part of their total income is represented by income from their business. The Committee does not think that that is of interest to the House, and that is not common sense.
The third matter, to which I shall devote the strength of my feelings, is the Committee's apparent obsession with trade union sponsorship. I am not sponsored by a trade union, but if I were I should certainly be proud of it. No Labour Member is in the least bit embarrassed by, or has any difficulty whatsoever with, sponsorship by a trade union. We are proud of the support that we get from our trade unions. It is clear and distinct that there is no direct financial interest behind a donation to a constituency party by a trade union. It would he proper that that should not be a matter for declaration in the register. However, I am happy that it is and that it has been included, but clearly there must be a level playing field in such matters.
§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)There is another point. I was kicked out of the House because I said that Norman Tebbit was lining his pockets when he became a non-executive director of British Telecom. What about Peter Walker? He had been in the Cabinet but 18 months after he left it he received about 10 directorships. Moreover, would not it have been handy if we had had a register that said, "You must include the amount of money that you have received from companies or other bodies"? In that case, Peter Walker would have had to declare the several hundreds of thousands of pounds that he received from Maxwell for being the chairman of a company for a few short months, the Mercedes car and his £100,000 golden handshake. All that would have been in the register, and it is conceivable that he would have had to walk the plank with Maxwell had that been declared.
§ Mr. GrocottMy hon. Friend makes an important point. As I read the register of interests—I will be corrected by members of the Select Committee, who have been through all the detailed arguments, if I am wrong—if I as a member of the National Union of Journalists were to receive a regular contribution to my constituency party of £500 a year, which I do not, that would be declared in the register. If another hon. Member received a donation from, for example, a wealthy newspaper proprietor to the constituency party fund of, say, £100,000 in a single year, that would not be subject to the declaration of interests. That is absolutely ludicrous. It defies all common sense.
Although I was not party to all the discussions in the Committee, I suggest that we are talking not about the financial interests of Members of Parliament, but about the financing of political parties. I, for one, would be delighted if a Select Committee inquired into the financing of political parties. I would love to know the details about where the Conservative party receives all its money from. I know that it certainly has much more money '.o spend at a general election than any other party. The figures that I have seen for the 1987 general election show that the Conservative party spent about £9 million and the Labour party spent £4 million, while £1 million was spent by whatever the other lot were called at the time.
There is no doubt that the Conservatives 'lave much more available money, so perhaps we should consider the financing of political parties. That is indirectly related to the interests of hon. Members. It is in all of our interests to get elected, and the way in which we are elected depends, in part at least, on the way in which our political parties are financed.
It is most peculiar that there is an obsessio,, with the way in which financing in local constituencies takes place. There are strict rules over expenditure in individual constituencies and they have been in place since the 1880s, but there is no control or regulation over the national expenditure of political parties. However, we all know perfectly well that we are far more dependent for our position in this place on the national expenditure by political parties than we ever are on what is spent locally in individual constituencies.
It is perfectly legitimate for the Select Committee to consider, not the direct financial interests of hon. Members, but payment to constituency parties ir order to make them function, but it should do it fairly and on the basis of a level playing field. If that consideration needs to be extended into an inquiry as to how political parties are
223 financed so that we are a little more frank about how that takes place—something that I would welcome—let us do that as well.
To avoid sounding churlish and sour, I assure the House that I have no difficulty with the contents of the report, which I commend to hon. Members. I join my hon. Friends in urging the Leader of the House to accept that the issues involved are important and need to be acted on. There is agreement, at least at a minimal level, about how they should be acted on, and I urge the right hon. Gentleman to bring resolutions before the House as a matter of urgency.
§ Mr. Terrence L. Higgins (Worthing)I welcome the debate and, for reasons that I shall explain, it is important that it is taking place before the Select Committees are re-established. In that connection, the Leader of the House will understand when I say that that is becoming a matter of the greatest urgency. I gather that many of the problems have been solved, but it would be totally wrong for the House to rise for the summer recess without the Committees having been established, so allowing them to organise their programmes, with the Government being held accountable.
I shall concentrate on the report concerned with Select Committees and their Chairmen, but I wish at the outset to make it clear that in my view it is important for Members to have outside interests, the corollary being that they are fully declared and understood by the House. I therefore welcome the other report and hope that its recommendations will be accepted.
The Select Committee was kind enough to invite me to give evidence as Chairman of the then Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee and the Liaison Committee. The oral evidence that I and the other Chairmen gave was rather unstructured because the Committee seemed preoccupied with members of Select Committees having a contractual relationship with or doing business with a Department. That is a narrow point which is covered in paragraph 27, and I say no more about it.
I come to what I believe is the right approach for members and chairmen of Select Committees. In that context, it is crucial that members should declare their interests fully and that the Committee should be well aware of the position in that respect. But I agree with those who say that Chairmen of Select Committees are in a different position, so that stronger and more stringent rules should apply to them.
To a considerable extent, a Select Committee's Chairman determines the agenda of that Committee, he has a relationship, if not confrontational, in many respects close to the Department concerned, and he drafts the Chairman's report. That itself is an influential factor because, although it may be amended subsequently, it is rarely totally transformed. So Chairmen are in a special position. But it would be wrong for the House to insist that Chairmen should have no outside interests whatever. That would be to impose on them a penalty that is not imposed on any other Members of the House.
§ Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)The Select Committee did not say that.
§ Mr. HigginsThat is right, so I am supporting what the Committee said in that respect. It would, as I think the Committee recognised, deter some able Members from playing the role of Chairmen of Select Committees. It would also inevitably lead to the argument that Chairmen of Select Committees should be paid.
I have long taken the view that the moment I ceased to be the Chairman of a Select Committee, they would be paid. Should they be paid in the future, they must be paid above the level of Minister of State because the duties are very onerous indeed. I would not wish to see Chairmen of Select Committees paid, and I go along with the recommendations of the Select Committee on Members' Interests that they should not be precluded from having outside interests. On the other hand, it would be wrong for them to have interests which were clearly likely to cause conflicts with the business of the Committees of which they were Chairmen.
A problem is that some Select Committees are narrow while others are very broad. For instance, the Chairman of the Select Committee on Health should not be a director of a pharmaceutical company, but I see nothing wrong in his being a director of a heavy engineering company. Some Select Committees, such as the Treasury Select Committee, virtually preclude the Chairmen from having outside interests. Chairmen should not hold interests that are in conflict with their duties. By and large, the recommendations of the Select Committee on Members' Interests recognise that.
Although it is difficult, we must at this stage consider what is a relevant interest of a Select Committee Chairman. I firmly believe that the right group to judge that is the Select Committee concerned. If full disclosure is made, Select Committee members are in the best position to judge whether a candidate for Chairman has interests which should preclude him from becoming Chairman.
The Select Committee was kind to me in saying that it was particularly attracted by my suggestion that, before a Select Committee first meets, the Committee Clerk should circulate to members a list of interests of the various Committee members. When they first meet to decide who to select as Chairman, they would then know the various interests and could decide whether those should preclude a candidate from becoming Chairman. That is the right approach to adopt.
I doubt whether the proposed resolutions would make much difference. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House pointed out, they would inevitably involve words like "reasonable", and would not make much difference. I hope that we are on the eve of setting up the Select Committees, so it is important that the procedure that I suggested should proceed. The Committee should know in advance of its first meeting what members' interests are, and should then make the appropriate decision on the Chairman.
If that happens, it seems unnecessary to have the proposed resolutions. The House often proceeds more flexibly and effectively in dealing with such matters if we do not try to spell out matters in closely defined words, but rely on the approach that I suggested. My approach would require far more detailed scrutiny of the real problem than a tightly worded resolution, which would be ineffective or defeat the object of the exercise.
225 I hope that we can proceed in that way. If we do so, there should be no reason for criticism—there has been little criticism until now—of the position of Chairmen or members of Select Committees.
§ Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)This is a very short and unsatisfactory debate, and we have been unable to pick up extra time from the curtailment of earlier debates. The whole debate is limited to one and a half hours, whereas it would have been preferable to have a motion allowing us to finish speaking one and a half hours after 10 o'clock.
The House is extremely indulgent with Select Committee members. The new rules that we recommend on the proposed registration form were meant to make matters absolutely clear. Some hon. Members had difficulties in grappling with the complexity of the registration form, so the House decided that we should have another look at it to make it clear "beyond peradventure", as lawyers say. It allows simple-minded Members of Parliament to get the financial information down so that they are not confused. If it were then discovered that Members had financial interests that they had not declared, they could not make the excuse that they had been confused.
That contrasts starkly with the House's attitude towards people in receipt of unemployment benefit, income support and a range of benefits. We do not give an inch. If those people do not provide the information because of an oversight or for some other reason, we do not say that we will make a new set of forms to make it easier for them. Instead, they are generally prosecuted. That is not good enough, especially when the House often passes statutory instruments to enforce criminal penalties without adequate scrutiny, and often without a vote.
If there was any doubt in anyone's mind, the new rules are a bit clearer. They now require the declaration of information about Lloyd's syndicates. There was quite a discussion on that subject in Committee, a vote was taken and it is now a requirement. That change is important in view of the background to the affair over the past 12 months in which Lloyd's has been rocked by dissension and scandal. Hon. Members have said in the Chamber that Lloyd's insurance market and its chairman are either incompetent or corrupt or both. Those are not my views but I echo them—I happen to share them, but I have not pronounced them. That shows how important it is to have an adequate declaration of interests. The Committee rightly came to that conclusion.
Page 35, paragraph 33, of the Committee's proceedings shows that there was a debate and a vote on the issue of declaring the amount of money that a Member of Parliament receives. It is no good running away from the subject. I and people outside the House believe that the amount of money received by a Member of Parliament reflects the measure of influence received. If a Member of Parliament receives £25 from a mothers' union for expenses, no one will say that his or her vote was influenced by it. But if an hon. Member receives £25,000, people will look askance if that hon. Member's vote benefits the people giving him the money. Everyone recognises that, but no one will say that it is necessary for hon. Members to declare the amount of money that they receive.
226 There will be pressure from outside the House as soon as a scandal breaks. I and other Committee members—but not a majority—thought that we should not wait for a scandal outside the House to push us into taking action. Before I entered the House in 1974, most hon. Members thought that the system was perfectly adequate. When I was elected, I said that we should have a register of Members' financial interests. Labour Members said to me, "Don't worry, we know the wrong 'uns in here and how to deal with them." That did not last long as the pressure which resulted from the Poulson scandal shoved the House into producing a register to clarify the position, but it did not go far enough.
Following pressure over a period of time, it has become clear that the register should be improved, which could be done by Members declaring their financial interests. The salaries that we receive are enough for us to live adequately. We receive more than most of our constituents and should not need outside interests. People who take the contrary view say that the House would be a dull place if it were full of professional Members of Parliament and would not benefit from the richness of outside interests. That argument is never used to say that people should work outside in mental hospitals for poverty wages, clean out lavatories, work in engineering shops or down mines to enrich their work in the House. The jobs that people say would enrich the House are always those associated with large sums of money. That argument simply is not true. A vast number of people wish to enter the House. Plenty of them are prepared to work here for our basic salary of £30,000 a year plus office expenses. We should not have to depend on outside sources. People would respect this place far more if we did not do so.
The recommendations of the Committee do not meet all my requirements, but I am prepared to support them because they represent an improvement—they are a step in the right direction. I hope that there will be more public pressure to ensure that financial receipts are recorded. Things have come to a pretty pass when the following story can take place. A public relations representative came before the Select Committee on Members' Interests knowing that he had been paying thousands of pounds to Members of this House for introducing work to his company. The money was paid as a commission, but it was never declared and the matter came to light by chance. That individual told the Committee, supposedly the High Court of Parliament and duly appointed by this House to make a report, that he would not tell us how much money he had paid to Members. This is not good enough; the House must tackle the problem and agree to a Standing Order which requires Members to declare their financial interests.
The report on the Chairmen of Select Committees was embarked on as a result of a complaint by a Select Committee about an apparent conflict of interest. The press did not present those involved as having behaved decently, honourably or nobly. The press reports said that the Chairman of a Select Committee was involved in a conflict of interest that he had failed to declare. That Committee took up the matter and wrote to the Select Committee on Members' Interests asking for an investigation. Pressure from outside was brought to bear as well.
227 Our Committee recommends that resolutions be laid by the Leader of the House obliging a Member elected to be Chairman of a departmentally-related Committee or of the Public Accounts Committee to ensure
that he or she owns no financial interest in conflict with his or her duty to the committee and to the House. We further recommend that Standing Order No. 128 be amended to enable your Committee to consider any complaint based on non-compliance with that resolution.This sort of work is not very attractive but someone has to do it. It is downright distasteful to deal with complaints of this nature, but we had to look into the complaint by the Defence Select Committee. The Leader of the House should let us know whether he intends to table the necessary amendments to change Standing Orders.We further said:
We consider it … advisable, in the public interest, for the Chairmen of departmentally-related select committees and any chairman of the Public Accounts Committee to divest themselves of any direct personal pecuniary interest or benefit which might reasonably be thought to influence their judgment; or from which the Chairman might reasonably be thought to benefit directly from his or her position as Chairman. And we recommend that the House should place this requirement upon the Chairman of these committees by a further resolution.An hour and a half is not long. These resolutions should be included on the Order Paper before the summer recess so as to ensure that we can vote on them and put them into action immediately, thereby avoiding future conflicts of interest in our Select Committees of the sort that arose in the story that I have outlined.
§ Mr. Robert Adley (Christchurch)First, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith)—I hope that I can do so on behalf of all hon. Members—for his unfailing courtesy, patience and tolerance with all of us who participated from time to time in the Committee's deliberations. He did not have an easy job, but he always bent over backwards, if any of us were late, to ensure that we were not left behind because we had missed the Committee's earlier discussions.
The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) talked about obsessions, and referred to the Committee's obsession with trade union matters. I do not propose to discuss that. I think that one of the obsessions of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) is that this place is full of corrupt or neo-corrupt individuals. I do not believe that that is true. I do not believe either that that opinion is held by more than a tiny number of people outside the House. The press has done a great deal to generate interest in some activities and I think that it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) who made the point that during his weekend surgeries in his constituency he is not constantly invaded by people coming to complain about the corrupt activities of hon. Members.
§ Mr. CryerI shall intervene only briefly because the hon. Gentleman referred to me. I did not make such a comment nor imply that. I say only that I think that people outside the House are entitled to make a judgment. I think also that the declaration would raise the standing of this place, not diminish it.
§ Mr. AdleyI shall not argue with the hon. Gentleman, who has made his point.
I wish to take up two matters with which the Committee tried to deal during its deliberations. I categorise the first as transparency and the second as the perversion of the House. It is important that we should do everything that we can to ensure that there is transparency, so that there is every opportunity for people inside the House and outside to know to whom they are talking and from whom they are receiving telephone calls and correspondence.
No mention has been made this evening of the register of the interests of Members' secretaries and of their research assistants, which I use as an example. It is a fascinating document. Virtually all the major public relations and parliamentary consultancy companies in the country have someone in the House working for a Member. I suggest that those of my colleagues who have not read the register would be well advised to do so.
As you well know, Madam Speaker, the House is a funny place. We pass laws and tell everyone in the country to improve his or her methods of trading and methods of business and, indeed, to improve everything that he or she does, but the amount of training, assistance, advice and guidance that is given to new Members when they enter the House is virtually nil, particularly on the subjects that we are now discussing.
During the 22 years that I have been in the House, the activities of lobbying companies have transformed its affairs in many ways. It would have been unnecessary and, I think, unthinkable 22 years ago to have to refer to the pressures that Members might face from commercial and professional lobbying organisations outwith the House. That is no longer the position. I think that one of our recommendations in due course will be that new Members should be made aware of the pressures that they might face from lobbying organisations and, for example, from polling organisations. Long ago, I stopped taking telephone calls from polling organisations, but they are being made all the time. I am sure that new Members will be asked whether they can spare half an hour or an hour for one of these organisations, which will charge their clients huge fees based on the time that they have extracted, as it were, from hon. Members. It is right that people should know about these things. New Members should be made aware of the pressures that will be brought to bear on them, which they now accept whereas we never did.
I shall refer briefly to some of the comments that are contained in the report. I shall not quote at length because time is short but merely quote one or two paragraphs. First, I turn to paragraph 58, which is headed:
Visits and benefits for Members' staff".How many of us in the Chamber know how many times our secretaries and research assistants are contacted by commercial lobbying organisations? The paragraph refers to visits and benefits for our staff, but do any of us really know what pressures some of those who work long and hard for us are under from some of the professional lobbying organisations? It might be worth while for new Members especially to ask their secretaries or research assistants what approaches they have received from some of those organisations.I do not always agree with the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), but he has some original ideas on 229 the subject. He gave ample evidence to the Committee. I refer hon. Members to two sentences that appear on page 28. They are as follows:
The whole business world that has grown up around influencing Members of Parliament is staggering. I throw away 95 per cent. by weight of my mail every day, all of which is paid for by the Chancellor of the Exchequer because it is a legitimate business expense to send annual reports to hon. Members. The Palace of Westminster is crowded with lobbyists.Many of us know that that is true.My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman), giving evidence to the Committee which appears at page 52, refers to his mailbag. He said:
I am very aware from my own mailbag and the high and growing proportion of the letters and communications I receive which are generated quite obviously from lobby groups of one kind or another.Many of them are entirely legitimate, but they are part of the pressure that is applied to Members about which we should know more.The right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) —I am not sure whether he is still chairman of the parliamentary Labour party—referred at page 63 to the grey area of
PR companies where you do not know who they are actually representing.There is a clear area for a lead for more transparency.I commend to those of my colleagues who have not read it the final paragraph on page 83 of Professor Norton's memorandum as an example of the pressures that we are up against.
We have done our best to provide the House with a little guidance. I do not know whether we have done a perfect job, but I echo the views expressed already to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. We hope that in due course he will come forward with some proposals which result in the House being able to take action.
§ Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)I spent nine years as a member of the Select Committee and I have spent the past six years angling for the inquiry that has now taken place into registration and declaration.
I have always believed that the rules were deficient. I do not believe that the House is full of corrupt people, but I do believe that there are people in the House who abuse the House. They abuse our procedures and they have to be restrained.
I want to start by referring to a resolution carried on 22 June 1858. It might be for the House to reflect on whether we fulfil the terms of that resoluton some 140 years later. That resolution says:
That it is contrary to the usage and derogatory to the dignity of this House that any of its Members should bring forward, promote or advocate in this House, any proceedings or measure in which he may have acted or been concerned for or in consideration of any pecuniary fee or reward.That resolution has been breached on perhaps thousands of occasions during the past century—most recently over Lloyd's, where we know that Members have made statements in the House of Commons when they knew that a pecuniary fee or reward was a consideration arising from their interventions.We raised a number of issues in the report which, in the main, deals with the problems that concern me, but there are one or two areas where we have not satisfactorily dealt with the problems. One of them is on the question of 230 spouses' interests. In Committee, when discussing spouses' interests, we used to refer to what I called the Shirley Porter amendment. That referred to the unlikely scenario where I, the Member of Parliament for Workington, was married to Lady Porter. The question that I put repeatedly to the Committee was whether her shareholdings in Tesco might reasonably be thought by others to influence my actions, speeches or votes in Parliament, or actions taken in my capacity as a Member of Parliament. My view is that, in the unlikely event of my being married to Lady Porter, those shareholdings would be an influence on my judgments, and that I would have to declare them. The moment one goes down that route, spouse interest must be taken into account by the House of Commons—insofar as in many circumstances, due to the very nature of marriage, they are inseparable from the interest of the Member of Parliament concerned.
Gifts and hospitality are another aspect that cause me concern. The offer of visits abroad, tickets and hospitality abroad by outside organisations is widespread. I know to my certain knowledge of innumerable examples in this place where tickets and hospitality have neither been registered nor declared. If we are honest with ourselves, we all know that to be true. I hope that the way in which the form has been rephrased will catch people out who previously thought that they should not reveal to Parliament or to the public that their visits abroad—often for the most legitimate reasons—were paid for by outside organisations.
My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) referred to sponsorship, which historically has been a debate about trade unions. Following the 1974 resolution of the House, Hastings agreements on trade union sponsorship were always registered and declared. I have argued repeatedly in the Committee that other forms of sponsorship exist. I refer to sponsorship by companies, where the benefit is equally indirect—being conferred not on the Member of Parliament but on his constituency party or association; professional bodies; partnerships; and industrial organisations, to which I shall refer later.
My hon. Friend referred to the need for a level playing field, but I believe that one does not exist in the application of the rules—and has not done so since 1974, with the exception of two Conservative Members who registered sponsorship of their Conservative associations by companies.
I draw the attention of the House to examples of company sponsorship. Stanley Kalms of Dixons paid £100,000 to local Conservative associations and to Conservative Central Office. None of that money was ever declared or registered by Conservative Members in the register, on the Floor of the House, or in Committee. Meanwhile, Labour Members are declaring and register-ing trade union sponsorship to the value of £600.
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursI would like to do so, but the time is 9.48 pm, and there are only 15 minutes left for this debate.
Tony Clegg, a business man, paid £20,000 to local and national Conservataive associations; and the constituency association of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) received a lump sum of 231 £10,000 from Wallace Mercer, a property developer in Scotland whose company is named Dunedin Properties. I believe that he is also a director of the Hearts football club.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West is an honourable man, and I do not question his integrity; but does he think it fair that a trade union-sponsored Member of Parliament receiving £600 a year for his constituency association should have to register and declare that money, while the hon. Gentleman's constituency association is not required to do so, although the implications in terms of influence are exactly the same?
In 1989, and again in 1990, the Boddington group of companies, which specialises in health care, paid £5,000 to Conservative associations. I submit that the payment of those moneys is indistinguishable from the payment of moneys by trade unions to constituency parties; both benefit the hon. Members concerned.
The Vaux group paid £12,000 to, I believe, an industrial council, which then passed it on to Conservative constituency associations. During one inquiry, I produced the accounts of a company called Hall and Woodhouse Brewers, which contributed to Conservative associations in 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989. The people who worked in the plant were members of the Transport and General Workers Union. Hon. Members sponsored by that union were declaring and registering the £600 per annum that was paid to their constituency parties, while the constituency associations that received moneys in those four years were not required to declare the receipt of the moneys through the hon. Members concerned, or to register it in the House of Commons.
British United Industrialists also pays money to constituency associations. In a single year-–1989–16 companies paid £186,000 to local Conservative associations, and industrial councils paid £169,000 to such associations. That money came from 14 companies.
I am merely arguing for a level playing field. If moneys are going from companies, at local level, directly to constituency associations—exerting exactly the same influence as trade union sponsorship on the operation of those associations—why should hon. Members who receive £600 a year from unions have to register it?
I am sorry if I have been provocative. As members of the Committee know, I have supported many proposals and amendments from Conservative Members, but I believe that we have not dealt with some issues properly. Let me quote from some documents from Conservative Central Office. A note from the North West Industrial Council reads as follows:
I know that some to whom I am writing have said that they arc unable to send company donations for one reason or another. In such cases, it would be very much appreciated if your Directors who are Conservative supporters would kindly send a joint or individual personal contribution. When considering this request, I am sure the significant reductions in personal taxation by the Conservative administration—and the well-publicised intentions of Labour to increase top marginal rates"—that is all nonsense, by the way—will be borne in mind.Another document explains
how to make your donation".We are not talking about tenners and fivers. The document states:Please tick the appropriate box below and fill in details of your name and address".232 Donations of £200, £250, £500 or £1,000 are requested from business men for Conservative associations—sums far in excess of the money paid to the majority of Labour constituencies under the Hastings agreement. We know that such contributions are often made.I have a document from the Conservative and Unionist party treasurer's department. It says:
We are always grateful for any amount received, but in view of the high cost of running the Party Organisation these days, we hope that as many corporate donations as possible will be in the four figure bracket or at least in the hundreds from smaller concerns … Cheques should kindly be made in favour of either the 'North West Industrial Council' orto the Conservative party. I do not object to the principle of registration or declaration, so long as there is an equal obligation on Conservative Members to register and declare. Tens of thousands of businesses and business men pay sums to Conservative associations far in excess of the £600 that constituency parties receive annually under the Hastings agreement.I refer Conservative Members to what the hon. Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) admitted during a "World in Action" interview. I have the transcript. On the question of influence, he said:
One representative of a brewer made it clear to me in oblique terms that if I didn't back the brewers in what they were saying, then of course, perhaps, some money might be withdrawn from the Conservative Party".In other words, he was saying that pressure can be brought to bear, yet Conservative Members persist in arguing that the register is necessary because of unions' ability to influence Labour Members. There is an admission of influence, made by a Conservative Member on a national programme.Finally, I draw an analogy between an industrial council and an industrial union. If an industrial union sponsors a constituency party, it pays £600 a year which is used to run the constituency party.
§ Dame Peggy Fenner (Medway)It sponsors a Member.
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursBut the money goes to the constituency party; the Member sees none of it.
That industrial union is, in effect, a combine—a combination of members who have an objective: to pay moneys to a constituency Labour party. That is what they believe in. An industrial council is a combine. It has members just like trade unions and they collectively put their funds together and pay them in one sum to a constituency association because, again, they want to give their money to the Conservative party. What is the difference? I am able to identify the difference. An industrial council combine does not have to register or declare, but an industrial union combine must do so. Yet they can pay exactly the same sum of money annually.
I believe that that is unreasonable. The great majority of people in this country will agree with me. If it were possible to televise our proceedings tonight, the noise that has come from the Conservative Benches during my speech would show the public who is right. I am right, and they know that I am right. They know that there is an inconsistency and that we are right to argue for a level playing field.
Mr. John Bowls (Battersea)The debate is about influence. We have just heard a speech which underlines the fact that if money is given to a Labour hon. Member, 233 influence is bought whereas if money is given to a Conservative party association, there is no influence bought because there are no votes bought in the Conservative party by any contribution.
The question of influence is important and relates to what has been said by my former colleagues on the Select Committee about declaring amounts. Certainly when I was a member of that Committee, there was an interesting debate, which I am sure has continued since, about the extent to which the money received by an individual hon. Member could influence him. Perhaps inadvertently, but fairly, members of Labour's Front Bench made the point that the extent to which a donation may influence an hon. Members's actions depends on his or her financial standing. There might have been a case for suggesting that a declaration should be made if the money received was above a certain proportion of total income, but that case was not made in Committee and has not been made tonight, so it is a matter for another day.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) on his chairing of the Committee and on the recommendations made to the House, and I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on his reception of them. I look forward to steady progress on these issues and on the recommendations made by the Select Committee of which I was a member. They will enhance the standing of the House and reassure the members of the public who are watching the debate that the overwhelming majority of Members are honourable Members and that they try to look after their constituents' interests and put aside any other pressures that may he placed on them by outside bodies. In that spirit, we should welcome the report and the results that will flow from it.
§ 10 pm
§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)The debate certainly shows the weakness of the Select Committee system because, once again, sloppy consensus is at work. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) said that he and other Labour Members of Parliament tried to move some resolutions, but they were flattened. They wanted to ensure that the money received by hon.
234 Members who had directorships and who made money in the law courts was mentioned in the register, but they got done. Sloppy consensus prevailed.
We are not talking about the real issues because the fact that some hon. Members get directorships means that they are away from the House. Under the previous Government, 200 or so Tory Members of Parliament had directorships, consultancies and God knows what else, which is why we meet here at half-past two in the afternoon. They had 500 or so directorships between them, and there is a pairing system in the House so that Tory hon. Members can make money outside—
§ It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings thereon, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put, pursuant to Order 19 June].
§ Madam SpeakerWith the leave of the House, I shall put the remaining motions together.