MEMBERS' INTERESTS (Hansard, 24 July 1998)

§ Mr. Moss
I beg to move amendment No. 24, in page 17, leave out lines 32 to 36.
Clause 35 deals with Members' interests. The amendment would delete subsection (3), which deals with the power of the Assembly to establish Standing Orders that may prevent or restrict the participation of a Member with a registerable interest in a matter to which the Assembly's proceedings relate.
Will the Minister enlighten the Committee on to where the proposal in subsection (3) emanates from? It has certainly been incorporated in the Scotland Bill, which recently proceeded through the House, but I could not find an earlier reference in relation to Standing Orders for this Parliament.
The rules of this House have certainly been tightened in the year or so since the Nolan report, but, so I am led to understand by the Clerks of the House, we have nothing that goes so far as to prevent a Member from participating in our proceedings, save that a Member is not allowed to act as an advocate for a person or body for which he or she has a registerable interest.
Subsection (3) gives the Assembly wide-ranging powers to impose severe and possibly unacceptable conditions on its Members that could inhibit debate. Significant contributions can often be made by Members with expertise and a particular interest, registerable or otherwise, in a particular subject. So long as that interest is registered and declared at the appropriate time in the Assembly's proceedings, there is nothing to be lost, and much to be gained, by exercising tolerance and reasonableness.
Given the various other constraints placed on the operation of the Assembly, essentially through the separation of excepted and reserved matters from transferred matters, why should the Assembly be given powers that would work against the interests of openness and democracy in its proceedings? The amendment would remove the particular power from the Assembly to make such Standing Orders. In our submission, it would leave, in the remaining subsections of clause 35, considerable opportunities for the Assembly to make Standing Orders to regulate the participation of Members with a registerable interest. For example, subsection (4) deals 1399 adequately with advocacy and the payment for initiating a cause in the Assembly, which are quite rightly to be prohibited.
Subsection (3) is superfluous to requirements. It is not to be found in the agreement. The amendment would help the proper and effective working of the Assembly by not placing unreasonable restrictions on the free speech afforded to its Members. That is a sentiment which I hope the Minister and the Government will find persuasive.

§ Mr. Öpik
I support the amendment, as the provision not only seems over-cautious but runs the risk of being manipulated in rather dubious ways.
I might be oversimplifying matters a little, but if one considers the operation of this Chamber, the fact is that, so long as an hon. Member declares an interest, he can participate meaningfully in a debate. Surely someone who declares an interest is more likely to want to participate in relevant debates, not always—or not usually—with evil intent. Moreover, if someone has declared an interest, is not he or she more likely to give an informed opinion and to know something about that issue?
I should much prefer to have a debate with people who have openly declared an interest and said why they wish to participate in a debate than with those who—although they may perhaps be able to be entirely dispassionate about it—may not have the matter at heart. Therefore, I look forward to hearing the Minister's reassurances about why clause 34(3) has been included in the Bill.

§ Mr. Worthington
We think that amendment No. 24 is a strange amendment, as it would remove the Assembly's power to provide in its Standing Orders for preventing or restricting the participation in proceedings of…a member with a registerable interest…in a matter to which the proceedings relate. The subsection is not telling the Assembly; it is giving it the power to include such a provision in its standing orders if it wishes to do so.
Clause 35(3) has to be read in conjunction with 35(2), which requires people to make a declaration of interest. That requirement is clear cut. However, clause 35(3) provides that the Assembly may—not "shall", which is always a point of confusion in legislation—take the power to decide that it is not sufficient for a Member simply to declare an interest, but that, in some particular instances, there should be extra powers to restrict a Member's participation.
There is nothing unusual about such a provision. As someone who moved from UK local government to UK central Government, I thought that it was very strange that all that was necessary to carry on speaking in this place was to declare an interest, whereas in local government one would not be allowed to speak in a debate or to be part of a committee that was considering a matter in which one had a declared interest. One would not be allowed even to be in the room when a decision was made on the matter.
We think that, in the majority of cases, it will be sufficient simply to require Members to declare an interest. However, in other cases, it may be appropriate for a Member to be prevented from voting on a matter in which he or she has a close interest. Although I do not 1400 want to deal with too many speculative issues, one might wish, for example, to give to the Assembly the power to introduce Standing Orders that, in some circumstances, would prevent a Member voting on an issue in which he or she has a significant financial interest—just as happens in local government.

§ Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)
As my hon. Friend said, is not "may" the operative word and the essential point? In most cases, a financial interest will be registered if there is one, and there will be no prohibition on a person speaking. However, if an interest, for example a contract, is so blatant or commercial, such a safeguard is reasonable and wise—especially in the post-Nolan world, and bearing in mind my hon. Friend's comments on local government—but is likely to be used only very rarely.

§ Mr. Worthington
I am grateful for that intervention, which very much made the point that I wanted to make. We are saying not that such a provision has to be made, but that it will be for the judgment of the Assembly to decide the matter in formulating its Standing Orders. It can include the provision in its Standing Orders if it so wishes. We believe that it must be right to enable the Assembly to restrict or prevent in certain circumstances the participation of Members from proceedings in which they may have an interest. We think that that will add very considerably to the Assembly's credibility and openness.

§ Mr. William Ross (East Londonderry)
May I draw the Minister's attention to the largest industry in Northern Ireland, agriculture? A number of Members of the Assembly have agricultural interests, which are naturally financial interests. If they—the representatives of that section of the Northern Ireland community—were prevented from participating, the result might be extremely skewed decisions, because those decisions would have been taken by people who did not have a financial interest. It is for that reason that I tend to agree with the amendment rather than with the Minister.

§ Mr. Worthington
My point is that we should give the Assembly the power to exercise its own good sense in respect of its Standing Orders relating to what is an interest, the level of interest that should be declared and what action is to be taken. I have no problem whatsoever with the proposition that those involved in agriculture should defend the interests of agriculture; their expertise is perfectly acceptable and should be used by the Assembly. However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recognises that it would be quite inappropriate for someone who would personally benefit financially from a decision of the Assembly—someone whose farm would benefit specifically—to be required only to declare an interest. The Assembly might regard that as an inadequate disqualification of a person from participation in making decisions on that matter.
The matter is for the Assembly to decide in its Standing Orders relating to the declaration of interests and the role to be played by special interests within the Assembly. We should give the Assembly the power to draw up Standing Orders that enhance the standing of the Assembly in the 1401 eyes of the people of Northern Ireland. That is why we are giving the Assembly that power, which is a sensible power.

§ Mr. Moss
The Minister still has not answered the question that I put to him. Where does the clause come from? He has not told the Committee whether it appears in legislation pertaining to the proceedings of the House. He referred to local authority standing orders, so the provision might well have been lifted from local government legislation.
Notwithstanding the support that we would give to proper constraints relating to Members' interests in the operation of the Assembly, as I have said, we believe that there are adequate safeguards in clause 35. I agree with the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) that there should be proper safeguards. The clause uses the word "may", but we would conclude that there are sufficient safeguards already in clause 35. For example, subsection (4) states: Standing orders shall —not may— include provision prohibiting a member of the Assembly from…advocating or initiating any cause or matter on behalf of any person", or, indeed, on behalf of his or herself, no doubt, by any means specified in standing orders, in consideration of any payment or benefit in kind". I should have thought that that was a catch-all provision and that subsection (3) was therefore pretty irrelevant.

§ Mr. Worthington
On the question of where the provision comes from, the situation has been evolving since Nolan, so I cannot say that it is a straight copy from any specific legislation relating to the House. We are making proposals that seem appropriate to the new post-Nolan position. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the matter is not covered in the agreement, but we could not, in those miraculous few days, expect the agreement to cover all such issues.
However, I am sure that it is obvious to everyone that there should be a provision in the Northern Ireland Bill that sets up the Assembly covering the matter of Members' interests. We have simply put forward the proposition that, in the special circumstances of Northern Ireland, there should be a discretionary power for the Standing Orders of the Assembly to allow a ruling to be made as to whether, in some circumstances, the body needs to go beyond what exists in other respects. I am told that the provisions in the Scotland Bill are the same, almost word for word, and give flexibility to the Scottish Parliament.

§ Mr. Winnick
I do not want to be controversial at this time of the afternoon. I am not suggesting that my hon. Friend agrees with me, but it would not be a bad idea if we introduced the same Standing Orders in the House of Commons.

§ Mr. Worthington
It is interesting to hear what is in my hon. Friend's mind at this time on a Friday afternoon.
The provision is sensible and it will be up to the good sense of the Assembly to decide how to use it, if it wishes to do so.

§ Mr. Moss
Obviously, there must be adequate safeguards in the Assembly to deal with Members' 1402 interests. No one is suggesting that that should not be the case, but this may be a safeguard too far. We are in danger of over-legislating, and there are plenty of other adequate provisions in clause 35 to deal with Members with registrable interests.
It is interesting to hear the Minister admit that it is all right to add to the agreement, but not to detract from it. The Bill makes many additions to the agreement, which was presumably cast in tablets of stone on Mount Sinai.
As this point may be revisited in another place, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.