House of Lords: Members' Interests (Hansard, 9 November 1992)

§ Lord Wakeham
My Lords, the Procedure Committee has examined the issue of Lords' interests on a number of occasions in the past, most notably when a sub-committee looked at the whole matter of 1974. While successively clarifying the guidance in the Companion, the committee has concluded that a register of interests should not be established. Since the committee last considered the matter as recently as 1990, I am not myself sure that there would be much to be gained from returning to the subject at the moment.

§ Lord Marlesford
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that in the 18 years that have passed since this matter was last considered in detail a number of institutions in this country have been undermined by real misbehaviour and scandal in some cases and in other cases by mere innuendo, often falsely based and malicious? Are there not two alternative defences to innuendo? One is privacy and secrecy and the other is transparency. Is not transparency by far the better approach?

§ Lord Wakeham
My Lords, in his supplementary question my noble friend phrased some points with which I would not wish to disagree. However, I do not think that they address the Question on the Order Paper, which is whether or not we should have a register. The position in this House has been discussed many times before. It has always been accepted that noble Lords speak on their personal honour. It follows that a noble Lord should voluntarily declare any financial or other interest that he may have before speaking. As the House has no power to enforce compulsory declaration, I am unsure what a voluntary register would add to the current rules. However, I am sure that it is open to my noble friend to place the matter before the Procedure Committee. If he thinks that he ought to do so, I suggest that he sends the committee a memorandum.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, is it not the case that parliamentary colleagues in another place are in fact obliged to subscribe to a register of interests, whereas we, as the noble Lord has just said, are not so obliged and treat it as a matter of personal honour? Is there any significance in that, especially as this House deals with more or less the same subjects?

§ Lord Wakeham
My Lords, there is a significant difference but it is not as the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, suggested. The fundamental difference is that this House has none of the sanctions available in the other place to ensure compliance with a register. The powers of the other place include the expulsion of Members on the recommendation of the Select Committee on Members' Interests. In contrast, it has 9 always been accepted that this House cannot override the right of your Lordships to speak and to vote provided by the Writ of Summons. That is the important difference in the procedures between the two Houses.
Of course, there are a number of other differences; for example, Members of your Lordships' House are not in the same position as Members of another place, or indeed as members of local authorities. The financial privileges of the other place mean that this House has few powers over the public purse and, unlike local authorities, it awards no contracts. It is the fundamental difference between the Writ of Summons and the powers of the House of Commons. If we wanted to change the position, it would require legislation and not a register.

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the matter has been exhaustively considered on quite a number of occasions and that no evidence of any kind has been produced of any abuse which would be remedied by a register? Therefore, I suggest to my noble friend that we should leave the matter alone.

§ Lord Wakeham
My Lords, my noble friend has infinitely longer experience on such matters than me. However, when I was preparing myself to answer the Question I recognised the fact that the matter has been looked into a great deal. I can see no argument for changing the present arrangements.

§ Lord Tordoff
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that some of us wish that we had something to declare? Is he also aware that on these Benches some years ago (when I was the Liberal Party Chief Whip) we introduced a voluntary system for people wishing to make a declaration which was very much in line with the system in the House of Commons? A register was produced, but over a period of about four or five years no one ever came to look at it. So we stopped doing it.

§ Lord Wakeham
My Lords, I certainly agree with the noble Lord thus far. Certainly when I was in another place, I always found that if I had an interest to declare I was most anxious to do so because it seemed to me that, if I had some interest in the matter, I might be able to persuade the House that I knew something of what I was talking about. Of course, it is not correct for a Member of your Lordships' House to fail to declare before he speaks any financial or other interests that he has. That is the procedure. It is a voluntary procedure but it is still an important procedure and one to which I think the House would expect your Lordships to stick. It is the question of whether or not to make it compulsory. I am advised that that would require legislation.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, does the noble Lord the Leader of the House agree that there has been some decline of public confidence in the probity of finance in this country over the past year or so, and that there may be a case for putting the matter to the House so that the House can decide on a free vote whether or not voluntarily to adopt a procedure which 10 would give the public confidence in the transparent honesty of the House in which so many of your Lordships have been expressing their confidence?

§ Lord Wakeham
My Lords, the House is perfectly entitled to do so. However, I believe it is right that I should point out once again to your Lordships that it would not have any binding force upon Members of the House whose right to speak in the Chamber is as a result of the Writ of Summons. It would require legislation to change the position and not a resolution of the House.

§ Baroness Carnegy of Lour
My Lords, does my noble friend really think that having a voluntary register of Members' interests goes against the way that the House is set up and the legal position? It seems to me that the public will not think very well of a House which operates on its behalf and which has an arrangement that requires it by honour to say what are its interests and not to go any further. Sometimes we need to check up on our colleagues to see whether or not they have told us the whole story. I cannot see that there is anything wrong in your Lordships having a voluntary register.

§ Lord Wakeham
My Lords, the point that I was seeking to make is that a voluntary register does not, in my view, add anything to the present position. There is a voluntary code. It is expected that Members of this House will follow it. A person who wishes, so to speak, to cheat on that is just as likely not to put something in a voluntary register as not to declare it at the time of speaking.

§ Lord Mason of Barnsley
My Lords, contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said, the matter has not been "exhaustively" raised before the Procedure Committee; indeed, when I questioned the issue in June 1989, I discovered, as the noble Lord the Leader of the House said, that it was last properly examined in 1974. It has never been thoroughly examined since then. However, the noble Lord the Leader of the House has indicated that a memorandum could be submitted to the Procedure Committee. That was also suggested to me in June 1989. Do I take it that its feasibility will be examined?

§ Lord Wakeham
My Lords, I suggest that what is exhaustive is a subjective matter rather than an objective test of anything. It is possible that the powers of endurance of the noble Lord, Lord Mason, are greater than those of others and, therefore, he does not think that the matter has been fully exhausted. However, as regards putting the matter before the Procedure Committee, certainly any noble Lord who wishes may do so. In so far as I have any influence with that committee, I would expect it to look seriously at the matter. Of course, it is primarily a matter for the committee, but I would certainly encourage those concerned to do so.

§ Lord Marlesford
My Lords, on the question of voluntarism which seems to be worrying him, does my noble friend agree that the system has worked well in the other place, although in a sense it was voluntary because Mr. Enoch Powell always chose not to 11 comply with it? However, he was an exception and an exception that was accepted. Would he further agree that the most effective pressure for compliance in such matters, and perhaps especially in this Chamber, is peer pressure?

§ Lord Wakeham
My Lords, I agree that that is an important pressure. However, I think that my noble friend overlooks the difference between this and another place. The other place has powers which include the expulsion of Members on the recommen-dation of the Select Committee on Members' Interests. That is a powerful sanction.