Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 771
the same time as the new form. After the first register the new rules will be published in January, following which the process of amendment and updating by letter to the registrar will continue in the same way as now.I recognise--there must be some humility about this--that although we believe that the rules are an improvement on the existing ones, and are more detailed and specific, they still require judgment and interpretation when applied to particular circumstances. It is the role of the registrar, a senior official of the House, to advise on matters of interpretation in the first instance. Everything said to him is treated in confidence. He can call on the assistance of the Select Committee if he encounters a problem that he is unable to settle on his own authority.
Paragraph 66 of the report gives the Committee the authority to make minor modifications. That is no thin end of the wedge but an attempt to deal with any wording of the rules that still results in some ambiguity. Such matters can come to light only when the rules are tested in practice. If it becomes apparent that the revised provisions have consequences that were not intended when the Committee agreed the report, there is machinery for putting matters right.
There never seems to be a time to consider these matters in a calm and objective fashion. Much of the exchanges about the funding of parties had nothing to do with members of the Committee who were not concerned with that wider question that has attracted so much attention over the past week or so. In dealing with the serious business of how far we can be open with the public to avoid innuendo and criticism, I have been greatly impressed by the painstaking way in which hon. Members have risen to their obligations. As I have said, I greatly appreciate the help that I have been given over the years by hon. Members from all parties who formed the Committee. I hope that the House will approach the debate in the same spirit and approve the Committee's recommendations.
11.3 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : We are debating the development of registration, which is a requirement on all hon. Members. The background is not simply that a Labour Government put that into effect, because in the early 1970s, and certainly when I was first elected, the general view was that this place did not need a register and that everybody knew the wrong 'uns. When I suggested a register, I was told by a Labour Member, "We don't need a register. We know all the wrong 'uns in here, old boy, and we can pick them out." The set of circumstances that produced the register were precipitated by a man called Poulson, a corrupt architect, who corrupted Members of Parliament, a senior civil servant and a varying number of councillors of all political persuasions. Because of the tide of criticism of people in public office, and because the wash swept over a large proportion of hon. Members who had behaved perfectly properly and with complete integrity but who were stained by the Poulson corruption, the House, following the report of Justice Salmond on "Standards of Conduct in Public Life", established the register. The truth was that, even if the House knew "wrong uns", there was little that it could do or wished to do at that time. The register has been a source of information and rightly so. Since its establishment, the House has set
Column 772
standards of conduct for local authority councillors. It is now a criminal offence for councillors to fail to declare a financial interest. The standards of conduct for councillors are much tighter than those for hon. Members. If any Member thinks that the new rules represent an additional burden, he should bear in mind the fact that the House requires much higher and tighter standards from councillors. Should they breach the rules, they are also subject to criminal penalties.Councillors with a financial interest are also required not to take part in various committee and council decisions. A councillor who is a council tenant requires special approval from the Department of the Environment to take part in any discussion of proposed rent changes. It is also worth noting that the House sets the standard of conduct for people outside. We determine through delegated powers given to Ministers, and approved in orders passed by the House, the information provided by and standard of conduct expected from the poorest people in the land--those who are on income support. We do not allow them not to declare any bit of capital that they may have or any other income. That must be declared. It would be hypocritical if the House did not accept the need for better, clearer rules --which it has requested--on Members' interests, if, at the same time, it imposed draconian rules on people who are seeking relatively tiny amounts of money. They are certainly tiny in contrast to Members' salaries. We are in receipt of taxpayers' money, and our salaries are better than those of most of our constituents. If people outside, who put us here, want to know about the influences that shape our voting and, in particular, any financial influences that may shape our voting, we should accept their request. That is part of the process of democratic accountability.
Although the report does not go far enough, it is a step in the right direction, and I support its general terms. On page xxxv, I proposed that the amount of money that hon. Members receive should be disclosed. The report does not require that, however, which is unsatisfactory. There is a marked difference between an hon. Member receiving 150 quid from the Women's Institute towards the cost of secretarial work, because that Member is interested in representing its case in Parliament, and someone who receives between £10,000 and £20,000 in personal income from an outside organisation. That should be known.
The disclosure of such information is not an intrusion on Members' privacy. If we receive money as Members of Parliament, in pursuance of our duties, people outside should know about it. That might stop Members from voting on a issue in which they have a direct, pecuniary interest, as defined in "Erskine May". If they were to vote with a direct pecuniary interest, the vote might be invalidated. The declaration of the amount of income that Members receive would be a safeguard against their foolishness. That happened recently when the Select Committee on Member's Interests examined a complaint about the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, who felt that he did not have to declare his part-payment of legal expenses to get rid of Miss Whiplash, because it was anonymous. The Committee was unanimous in the view that anonymous donations can be more dangerous than known donations.
What if, for example, Asil Nadir were one of the principal anonymous contributors who then turned up, two years later, on the steps of No. 11, knocking on the
Column 773
door and saying, "And by the way, Norm. Do you know that I made a major contribution and would like some little tax concessions in return."? That is a dangerous position for anyone to get themselves into, but it can happen without Members thinking too much about it, as clearly happened on that occasion.The declaration of the amount of money would therefore have been a safeguard and a benefit to Members, not a handicap. After all, some Members would positively like to boast of the money they receive from outside, so why should they not register it? However, the Committee has decided against that. There was a vote, and my proposition was defeated. That does not mean that I am against the report. I am disappointed, but I merely point out to those Members who think that this will be an additional onerous burden that, although the report does not satisfy me, I am prepared to compromise.
There are improvements. For example, clients must be listed if Members of Parliament are employed by an outside organisation dealing with specific clients. That used to be the case. Clients were nearly always listed in the register, but it simply fell into desuetude, to use a good Church of England phrase, and people simply did not bother. That can lead people into all sorts of traps and difficulties, as we have recently witnessed. People should have to declare the clients for whom they are providing a service. That is incorporated in the report, and represents an improvement.
Membership of Lloyd's syndicates was discussed by the Committee. A member of Lloyd's on the Committee did not like the view but did not take part in the voting, quite properly, and retained a neutral position. The Committee approved that the membership of a syndicate should be included. If Lloyd's were not a scandal-rocked institution these days, with Conservatives standing up in the House and making accusations about certain syndicates, it would probably never have been required to be incorporated. But it is a safeguard for Members against future accusations that they were voting to benefit their private financial interests. The fact that it is recorded will make their position much clearer. Thus, the Committee opted for openness. For the first time, the report defines the sort of gifts that must be declared. The figure is given as "over £125" and, as benefit in kind, 0.5 per cent. of the current salary of a Member of Parliament. That has never been adequately defined. It has been adequately defined for Ministers in the past. They have either had to return the gift, pay the balance--it used to be £30--or distribute the gift, if possible, around the members of their private office.
Those rules arose on the basis of the experience of a silver coffee pot. Tony Crosland opened a school and was given a silver coffee pot. Several months later it was discovered that the coffee pot was donated by Mr. Poulson and there were a lot of red faces. It was then decided that Ministers should not receive gifts because it might be argued that those gifts were being used to corrupt them. Ministerial rules were therefore laid down for Ministers' protection and the better information that Ministers were conducting their public affairs with the best possible probity.
That is really what the report is about. The rules represent an improvement and contain nothing to which
Column 774
hon. Members should object. They mean greater accountability. They will apply to Members of Parliament who apply much tighter rules to those outside this place. It would be hypocritical and double standards if any hon. Member voted against the rules while applying tighter rules to those outside.11.15 pm
Mr. Peter Viggers (Gosport) : It is never a happy experience to probe and discuss whether or not we behave properly. In my view, this is an open and honest House and the exceptions are very rare and well publicised.
I shall restrict myself to only three points. First, what sort of control should there be? Should it be control by the House or statutory control? The Committee was guided by my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) and by the previous Leader of the House, now my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, who took the firm view that we should not have statutory control, with the inevitable judicial procedures that that would involve, but that as a House we should police ourselves and Members of Parliament should be judged by their peers.
The Committee approached the issue on the basis that hon. Members are just that--honourable--and that the rules are there to guide them and give them protection. I join those who have urged hon. Members to rely on the registrar and, if in doubt, to register. The register should cause no fear. I voted against a register when it was first proposed, but I now recognise that the world has moved on and that the register exists to protect hon. Members as well as to police them.
Secondly, we are discussing two reports, the second of which is arguably the more important in the longer term. I refer to the report dealing with lobbying, which in recent years has become a large financial practice. The lobbyists--those who specialise in public relations--have, as their best interests, maximising of the number of clients and claiming that they have considerable influence over hon. Members and therefore, through the vote, the House. I am not sure that lobbying companies have as much influence
Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. There will be a separate debate on that issue, so the hon. Gentleman must confine himself to what is immediately under consideration. Many hon. Members want to speak in the debate.
Mr. Viggers : I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. Iwas under the impression that the two debates elided. Obviously, I was wrong. My third point is that in Committee reference was made to members of Lloyd's and there was a vigourous discussion about how they should declare their interests. That provided the opportunity for quite a lot of fruitful political digging because more Conservative Members than Labour Members are members of Lloyd's--I think by a majority of 47 to zero.
I declare my interest as a member of Lloyd's since 1973, which predates my entry to the House, and an elected member of the Council of Lloyd's during the last 18 months. My guidance to the Committee was that it would be onerous to require members of Lloyds to declare their interests fully within the register. My view was based on a realistic premise of the way in which members of Lloyd's declared their interests in the working group on Lloyd's. I
Column 775
said that I thought that the size of the register could be doubled if members of Lloyds declared their interests fully and in a manner that would fully explain their financial interests. My guidance was that that would throw the register out of kilter and put far too much on Lloyd's as against other matters.Other Members took a different view. They thought that at least Members of Parliament should list their syndicate numbers for the year in question. My advice then and now is that that is a pretty pointless and rather prurient exercise because it does not give any full idea of the results that the member will get from Lloyd's in any one year. The numbers alone do not give an idea of the amount of his participation in any one syndicate. Nor does it show whether he has any so-called "stop loss" on his investments or whether he has any open years from previous years.
The issue has caused some concern and even anger among members of Lloyd's here. They feel that the exercise is prurient and pretty pointless. My considered judgment is that, as the world has moved on, there is keen interest in Lloyd's of London, which is an important and large institution. It is one of the largest single export earners in Britain. Individual participants inevitably receive some publicity if they participate in such an exercise. I say to my hon. Friends who are members of Lloyd's that the compromise on naming individual syndicates is not particularly productive, but perhaps it is a reasonable way of giving some further information on the membership of Lloyd's of Members of Parliament.
I abstained in the Committee. I do not feel particularly strongly about the issue now. I would prefer that the requirement was not included. Nevertheless, other members of the Committee felt strongly on the issue and I therefore commend the point to my hon. Friends, although I do not do so with any great enthusiasm.
11.21 pm
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington) : I shall be brief, having spoken earlier this evening. I wish to place on record the fact that we all regret the passing of Robert Adley, who was an active member of the Committee for several years. He played a major part in the formulation of much of what is in the report.
I wish to qualify the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) about clients, in case some hon. Members are worried about the matter. The need to declare a client arises only where that client is being served by way of a Member carrying out his parliamentary duties. The form says that clearly in the box which deals with that matter. It does not require the registration of all clients of a Member of Parliament, who might well represent clients on matters unrelated to activities on the Floor of the House or the conduct of his work.
I draw attention to the matter of sponsorship. Labour Members do not object to sponsored Members having to declare or register. That is not the issue. The argument in the Committee was about whether there was a level playing field and whether it was right that only Labour Members who were sponsored, or whose constituency parties received money from trade unions, should have to declare sponsorship, when Conservative Members whose
Column 776
constituency associations receive money from organisations on a regular basis or, indeed, one-off payments, historically have not registered those payments over the years. We simply sought to set a level playing field.I went into the inquiry most worried about what I thought was happening in Parliament. One of the conclusions that I drew was that the problem was not so much the rules as the way in which the rules were applied in the form that Members are required to fill in annually. I concluded that, if we could simply redraw the form and marginally tighten up the rules, and if the rules were complied with, the form presented in the report would deal with many of the Committee's anxieties.
When we took evidence from the former Member for Winchester, John Browne, he repeatedly referred to what he said were ambiguities in our rules. We did not accept that ambiguities existed, but he believed that they did. That was his defence to many of the allegations made about his activities. During the course of the inquiry, therefore, we felt that we should tighten up the rules about which John Browne complained.
In the form that comprises annex 1 of the report, which makes the critical reform, the rules remain the same but they are presented differently--in the form of direct questions--which avoids any possible ambiguity.
The Committee's purpose over a number of years was always to seek a compromise. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) sought the declaration of payments received by right hon. or hon. Members from outside interests. I was not prepared, in the spirit of compromise, even to go that far. I merely requested--an amendment in the report deals with this point--that where Members of Parliament receive more than £10,000 a year from any organisation, sponsoring body, consultancy or directorship, they should asterisk that in their report.
There was never an attempt by some members of the Committee to pry into the private affairs of individual right hon. and hon. Members. We accepted that a balance had to be struck between privacy and the public interest. I believe that the report, which I hope will be approved by the House tonight, secures that objective.
11.26 pm
Sir Roger Moate (Faversham) : I want to place on record my deep unease at the manner in which we are asked to approve the report and some of its recommendations. That is not in any way to suggest that the Committee and its Chairman--my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith)--and others have not met their remit from the House. I do not doubt that they have done so thoroughly and conscientiously, but I feel uneasy about some of the features of the proceedings tonight--just as I felt uneasy, as I suspect did other right hon. and hon. Members, on those occasions when the House sought to pass judgment on the conduct of some colleagues, based on the Committee's rules and criteria.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) referred to the Poulson affair of some 20 years ago. I still feel that the House acted in a most unfair manner in the way that it treated certain of our colleagues. That is not to make a judgment about the merits of those individuals, but I felt that, when the House passed judgment on someone
Column 777
such as Mr. John Cordle, it did so unfairly and rather heavily, without giving that Member of Parliament a full opportunity to defend himself.Sir Roger Moate : As the hon. Gentleman says, Mr. Cordle resigned-- but, without legislation and the precision of law, peer group pressure and that of the media are brought to bear on certain Members of Parliament, without their having an opportunity to defend themselves in the way open to other citizens.
We asked the Committee to make general recommendations with a lack of precision, and we are called upon to pass judgments on specific instances on the basis of very woolly laws and rules. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) might be surprised to learn that I go along with the line that he seems to recommend--that if one is to start on that course, one must be logical and precise, so that Members of Parliament ultimately know the rules on which we are supposed to opperate. That can only be done by the force of law, because we are determining the rules by which a right hon. or hon. Member can represent his constituency.
My argument is borne out in some respects by the procedure. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House indicated that he had some reservations on certain points. None the less, it is right that we should accept this worthy report and pass it as it stands. In law, one cannot have reservations about certain points and say that nevertheless the general principle is right. Our job is to tidy up those points. The right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) welcomed the fact that the Committee had been given some flexibility to deal with minor adjustments. That is fine, so long as it adjusts matters that concern me, or other people, but we have no assurance about that.
I want to draw three points to the attention of the House. The first relates to staff. The report says that there should be a declaration of gifts, visits and other benefits conferred upon staff. That is a wide- ranging remit. I just wonder whether we have the power, resources, facilities and ability to monitor staff. I am not aware of having conferred benefits upon any of those who might be described as my staff. Nevertheless, that question could arise. Therefore, I wonder whether we are entering an area that we have no real authority, skill or ability to monitor.
The second point relates to consultancies. Again, I have no interest to declare. I wish, perhaps, that I had. The wording is still, I believe, ambiguous. People can be directors of consultancies, or consultants to consultancies. They can be very large or small firms. They can have a very large or a very small list of clients. The benefits--some would say the dubious benefits--that would result from a Member being a consultant would be conferred, presumably, upon all those clients.
The report that we are being asked to agree to refers to clients who directly or indirectly benefit from the advice of a Member. That is a wide- ranging phrase. All I ask the House to consider is that at some stage in the future there will be a case that attracts a lot of media attention, in which some client is indirectly receiving the benefit of the consultancy of some hon. Member. If that does not lead to doubt and uncertainty, I do not know what will.
Column 778
Mr. Campbell-Savours : If in doubt, go to the Clerk.
Sir Roger Moate : I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but in practice it means that if one has doubts, one must declare the list that contains the names of every single client of a particular agency. That is the only way ultimately to resolve the doubts. Every client of a consultancy or company must surely be receiving some indirect benefit from somebody, if that person is a director or consultant of that company. I do not believe that the House would accept such woolly phraseology in law. We shall get ourselves into difficulties by using such woolly phraseology here.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith : We are not talking about an indirect benefit in a general sense. We are talking specifically about the relationship that the member of the firm, who is a Member of Parliament, will have to that client, in pursuance of representations to a Minister or when speaking in the House, as a result of which he benefits as a consequence of his membership of that firm. We are talking about the active participation by a Member of Parliament in that relaamentary capacity.
Sir Roger Moate : Whether it arises directly or indirectly as a result of all those things, it is unsatisfactory.
My third point relates to our discussion about the location of property. There are reasonable interpretations of that, but we cannot leave it as wide as it is. We have left it very wide and very woolly, and it is still unsatisfactory. I hope that it will not happen, but in times to come we may find ourselves in difficulties because of the phraseology that we shall endorse tonight.
11.33 pm
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) : The hon. Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate) has just made an interesting speech, which I suspect points towards a move to statutory control and away from self-regulation. Nevertheless, I welcome the report. It sticks firmly to the principle of self-regulation. I suspect that at this stage we ought to stick to it and ensure that it is tight enough to work. I welcome the debate on the report, which has already been delayed too long. Indeed, at least one register, possibly two, has been published under the old rules while the report has been in existence. I welcome the progress that we are making tonight in ensuring that we tighten the rules. I agree with hon. Members who have said that the report aims to protect Members of Parliament. I note that the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), who originally voted against, has now come around to seeing things that way, and I agree with his observation that the world is changing and that we need to respond to it. Why is it important that we do so? Given what we have seen in the past few weeks, we hardly need to ask that question. What we are discussing goes to the heart of our democracy, especially to its legitimacy. It is crucial to engender among the electorate trust in Members of Parliament and to counter a cynicism and disillusion with politics that has become obvious in some quarters in recent years. It was Woody Allen, I think, who said that politicians as a profession were one notch below child molesters in the public esteem. Perhaps he knew from experience, but I
Column 779
hope that what we are doing tonight will raise the rather low esteem in which our constituents hold us. We are debating serious matters, and the onus is on us to prove our honesty in an open and transparent way that engenders trust.The report sensibly recognises the problem of self-assessment and the inconsistencies that result from it. It proposes to reduce those inconsistencies by sensible changes to the register. Only pecuniary interests are to be registered, which is absolutely right. We must maintain a register that is not too cumbersome but contains enough detail for it to be a meaningful document to which the public can refer when necessary.
I wish to deal quickly with a few of the changes that the report proposes. It proposes to divide category 5, financial sponsorships, into two new categories--sponsorship and occasional gifts. A somewhat spurious distinction is drawn between what we call the Hastings agreement money that is paid to Labour Members who are sponsored by a trade union and private donations to local associations of other political parties. I welcome the fact that declarations of donations of more than £500 must now be disclosed, but I do not understand the exemption for donations and quotas that are not linked to a Member's candidacy.
That spurious distinction caricatures the reality of trade union sponsorship and the way in which local branches of trade unions operate in local constituency Labour parties. The suggestion that union votes affect the outcome of parliamentary selections is not so true these days, and the charge that votes can be bought in a local constituency Labour party is wrong. I do not believe that I understand that distinction, and I should have preferred it if it had not been made.
I strongly support the switch to the use of questions on the registration form instead of the descriptive headings which characterised the old form because they make it harder for ambiguities to creep in and for misunderstandings or obvious omissions to emerge.
Column 780
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith : I apologise for interrupting the hon. Lady, but one has emerged in the debate, and it may also be on her mind. I refer to the role of an intermediary between the donor and a constituency party organisation. It must be made clear that, if an hon. Member associates himself with a fund-raising appeal aimed at potential donors but the resulting donations are then remitted direct to the local party organisation, it would not seem to constitute acting as an intermediary. I think that that has wide application for all parties.
Ms Eagle : We possibly need to have a watching brief of what happens with various local methods of fund raising, which ties the debate to the issue of the funding of political parties and other matters, but I shall not stray from the motion. As a member of the Select Committee, I should want to keep a close eye on such matters for possible inclusion in future reports.
I also welcome the change to category 9, under which shareholdings are listed. It was an anomaly that the holding of 1 per cent. of the issued share capital of a company had to be declared, regardless of the size of that company, whereas nothing below that had to be declared. Under the old system, substantial shareholdings in large companies, which were worth a great deal of money, could go undeclared, while smaller--
It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Madam Deputy Speaker-- proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of them, pursuant to order [24 June].
Question agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House approves the First Report from the Select Committee on Members' Interests of Session 1991-92 (House of Commons Paper No. 326) relating to the registration and declaration of Members' financial interests, provided that the recommendation in paragraph 84 of the Report relating to the declaration of any relevant registered interest at the time of tabling an early day motion shall apply only to the Member in charge of such a motion.
Column 781
Motion made, and Question proposed , That this House do now adjourn.-- [Mr. MacKay.]
Mr. Bowen Wells (Hertford and Stortford) rose --
11.41 pm
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith (Wealden) : I mean no discourtesy to my hon. Friend, but I believe that I have the floor.
I am grateful for the opportunity to debate the report on parliamentary lobbying. It is true that the report has been on the table for nearly two years, but a delayed debate is better than no debate. I imply no criticism of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. After we had completed part of our report on lobbying, we were interrupted by having to consider one or two complaints, which lasted a long time. We then went back to work, but, by that time, the election was nearly upon us.
I do not think that anything fundamental has happened in the past two years which would alter or allay the concerns which gave rise to the Committee's inquiry and report, so let me try briefly to summarise those concerns. The first and most basic is that, over the past 15 years or so, we have experienced a significant growth in all types of lobbying activities. There is nothing new or intrinsically wrong with lobbying ; it is probably the second oldest profession and, to my mind, it dates back to the time when King John was lobbied by the knights, who got the best of the bargain.
Lobbying can be seen as the sign of a healthy democracy in that organisations, interest groups, charities and individuals want to bring their views and problems to the attention of Members of Parliament, Departments and Ministers. What is new, however, is the increased organisation and professionalism of that process. Much lobbying is conducted by or on the advice of professional consultancies, which charge substantial fees for their services-- [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) must resume his seat or leave.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith : I am obliged to you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
As I was saying, much lobbying is conducted by or on the advice of professional consultancies, which charge substantial fees for their services and are in competition with one another for the available business.
Because of that competitive environment with large sums of money at stake, there is naturally a concern that traditional lobbying, which is undoubtedly an aid to healthy parliamentary democracy, may evolve step by imperceptible step, into forms of covert pressure and persuasion that could ultimately damage our democracy--
[Interruption.] There seem to be two debates going on at the moment, and I do not know what is happening below the Gangway. However, I hope that hon. Members who are paying attention to this debate have heard what I have said.
The next area of concern is the increasing use made of the facilities of the House for promotional or lobbying activities. I will say no more about that tonight. It is a matter more for the domestic Committees than for the Select Committee on Members' Interests. To some extent, that issue is already being tackled by measures such as the
Column 782
limitation on passes for the staff of hon. Members. However, the issue figures prominently in the evidence that the Committee took during its inquiry, and that concern should not be discounted. The next concern is perhaps felt more keenly outside the House than inside. The dividing line between professional lobbyists and politicians is no longer perceived by many people outside this place to be clear. There is no law or rule of the House that prevents a Back-Bench Member from accepting paid consultancies, some of which involve work closely akin to that of professional lobbyists. Those links with the commercial world outside Westminster bring great benefits to the House in many ways. However, we must also recognise that the House is unusual among Parliaments in the developed world in allowing hon. Members such freedom. Some do not allow outside interests. I declare that I have a range of outside interests and that might prejudice me in favour of the report that we considered previously and the report that we are debating now. However, people will know where I stand, and if they think that I am influenced by outside interests, so be it.If that freedom is to be justified, freedom must be counterbalanced by adequate safeguards. Our rules for registration and declaration of financial interests are, as we have agreed tonight, the most important safeguard. To apply similar rules to the professional lobbying firms would, in the Committee's opinion, reinforce those safeguards and provide a cross- check for the register.
The Committee's report is more in the nature of a Green Paper than a White Paper with a fully finished set of proposals. In the light of the concerns that I have mentioned, the report suggests that the House should decide, in principle, that a register of professional lobbyists should be established. Such a decision, which I am disappointed that we cannot take tonight because we are debating the matter on an Adjournment motion, would be a green light to the Select Committee to enter discussions with the lobbying profession about the details. We have drafted guidelines and a code of conduct in the annex to the report, which are intended as no more than a cock-shy. The report reaches three firm conclusions about the proposed register. First, like the Register of Members' Interests, it should be founded on a resolution of the House and not on statute law. Its enforcement would therefore be a matter for the House and not for the courts.
Secondly, the register should, at least to start with, cover only professional lobbyists--that is, firms or individuals who are paid to lobby on behalf of clients or to advise clients on how to lobby on their own behalf. The report refers to a group of professional lobbyists including some household names which are in sympathy with the concept that we should enter discussions with them about setting up a register.
If there were professional lobbyists, that would exclude two much more numerous classes : for example, those in the public affairs departments of some of the country's big firms, who lobby on behalf of their immediate employers rather than on behalf of outside clients. Hon. Members understand who we mean. The other group involves charities, professional bodies, industrial associations and similar pressure groups that lobby on behalf of the industries or groups that they represent.
Thirdly, the register should list firms and their clients, but it should not follow the equivalent registers in the United States and Canada--we went to Canada to
Column 783
examine the Canadian system--in attempting to record each individual lobbying project or act of lobbying. If that were the case, one would probably have a list as long as one's arm.As a result, the proposed register would be quite limited in scope and should not impose an undue administrative burden or costs on the Department of the Clerk of the House.
Hon. Members who have read the report will have noticed that it did not pass through the Committee without controversy. There was a minority view, which might be expressed during this debate, that the House would gain nothing from the establishment of a register of lobbyists. It is argued, in particular, that registration by the House would confer recognition and respectability on the lobbying firms which they might not deserve but which would boost their credibility with potential clients.
I remember that we came to the conclusion that that would be one of the drawbacks, but some hon. Members subsequently changed their minds. The House would be put to great trouble, so it is argued, and expense in establishing and maintaining the register, but its effect would be to encourage the development of professional lobbying rather than to control it.
Those are the arguments, which I have fairly set out, against our proposal. I understand the arguments, but I do not regard them as outweighing the arguments for taking action. There seems to be a clear case for more openness about lobbying activity.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cirencester and Tewkesbury) : My hon. Friend referred to openness in lobbying. Paragraph 10 on page 1i of his excellent report states that the Committee took evidence "from three of the larger trade unions."
In particular, it took evidence that the Confederation of Health Service Employees had six sponsored hon. Members and that the Transport and General Workers Union had 33 sponsored hon. Members. Paragraph 11 states :
"Those questioned made no secret of what they expected from their MPs."
Paragraph 12 states :
"The TGWU official told us Clearly if a Member of Parliament has failed to do that it would be perfectly legitimate for us to say, "Look, the relationship isn't working".'"
Paragraph 15 states :
"What is more a paid lobby of 33 MPs is so huge as to make one wonder whether it does not constitute a political party in its own right".
Would my hon. Friend be prepared to comment on that section of his report?
Next Section
| Home Page |