HL Deb 04 February 1999 vol 596 cc1607-10

3.10 p.m.

Lord Marlesford asked the Leader of the House:

Whether she will arrange for a committee of the House to consider whether it should now be made mandatory for those Lords who have taken the oath to register matters which they consider may affect the public perception of the way they discharge their parliamentary duties.

The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington)

My Lords, the straightforward answer to the noble Lord is yes, I will certainly consider establishing such a committee in due course. My understanding of the feeling of the House at present is that this is not regarded as an appropriate time to undertake this particular remit. If I am given countersignals from Members of the House in all quarters, and there is consensus that it would be appropriate to move ahead rapidly with this, I will certainly listen to that advice.

Lord Marlesford

My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for the first part of her Answer. Given the sensible scope of our present register, does the noble Baroness agree that on any occasion when there is adverse publicity—for instance, when a Member of the House has failed to declare an interest which the public as a whole feel should have been declared—such publicity damages the reputation of the House? In this context, does she further agree that the public make no distinction between Law Lords and the rest of us? Does she not accept that this is a matter of urgency and that the sooner the loophole is closed the better it will be for the reputation of your Lordships' House?

Baroness Jay of Paddington

My Lords, on the noble Lord's general point about the perception of your Lordships' House from outside, I am not sure that I entirely agree. The many people who understand the way in which the House works appreciate that we are not paid to be Members and that it is not in that sense a professional body which needs the kind of arrangements which are perhaps more appropriate in another place.

As to the specific question about the judicial element of your Lordships' House, noble Lords will be aware that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has written recently to the senior Law Lord on this question. At present there are no plans to introduce a separate judicial register of interests.

Lord Strathclyde

My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that, apart from one or two exceptions, the current rules on the register of interests work extremely well? Can the noble Baroness give her opinion of the future of the register, given the changes to the composition of this House which are laid out in a Bill that is before another place? If that Bill is passed, will the noble Baroness support a tougher regime of interests?

Baroness Jay of Paddington

My Lords, as I said in answer to the original Question of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, I am very happy to consider a further inquiry into the current regime, if it is the feeling of the House that that should be done with any urgency. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that the present system has worked to the extent that it was only set up in 1995. As I understand it, the committee designed to look into any potential difficulties has not had to address any difficulties of a formal kind.

As to the nature of the House which may develop as a result of the legislation which, as the noble Lord rightly said, is in front of another place at the moment, when that Bill is passed its provisions will be considered in the light of what I said in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, about the re-opening of this issue in that context.

Lord Ewing of Kirkford

My Lords, what has happened to the old idea of honour in this country? Can my noble friend explain the thinking behind a further inquiry? Is she aware that every time your Lordships' House or the other place concedes one more inquiry, we just feed the idea that politicians, from beginning to end, are corrupt? Has my noble friend seen the outcome of a recent opinion poll which showed that 35 per cent. of the people of this country trust politicians. That is not a very high percentage, but at least it is 20 per cent. higher than the percentage of people who trust journalists—15 per cent.

Baroness Jay of Paddington

My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point. On the basis of some opinion polls that I have recently seen, he probably exaggerates the enthusiasm of the public for professional politicians. No doubt we have been looking at different polls.

The point about re-opening an inquiry—and perhaps I use the word unadvisedly—was to look at the matter again through a Committee of the Whole House, as the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, said in his original Question. It certainly was not intended to imply any inquisitorial activity. I would remind my noble friend that it was your Lordships' Procedure Committee which suggested that it was time to look again at this issue—but, I re-emphasise, not in an inquisitorial way.

Viscount Cranborne

My Lords, I am sure that no Member of your Lordships' House would deny the imperative necessity of everyone declaring an interest, as we are all enjoined to do. Does the noble Baroness agree that there is equally a danger the other way—which is perhaps becoming increasingly apparent in another place—that if declaration becomes so onerous, not only would it encourage a witch hunt of the kind to which I think the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, alluded, but it might discourage able people, from all walks of life, from becoming interested in a career in politics?

Baroness Jay of Paddington

My Lords, I entirely accept in general terms what the noble Viscount has to say. Again I refer to my earlier answer: one of the factors that should always be taken into account when considering the nature of your Lordships' House is that people are not here in the capacity of professional, full-time, salaried politicians. That is obviously of relevance. In the context of the noble Viscount's question, I re-emphasise that the voluntary register of interests is being revised at the moment. The noble Viscount is right to point out that that is widely accepted and understood by your Lordships. The register is open for further additions until the 15th of this month.

Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank

My Lords, the particular matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, referred is, as the noble Baroness has said, a matter for the judiciary and, particularly, the Lord Chancellor. I was a member of the Griffiths Committee at the time of the debate in your Lordships' House and I was inclined to take the view that the register should go further than was then intended. Despite that—although 1995 is not long ago—I see no evidence at all to show that the decision made by your Lordships' House at that time was not the right one.

Baroness Jay of Paddington

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments. They seem to be consistent with my original reply.