House of Commons Hansard Debates for 19 Jul 1995

Column 1708

that I am right in that assumption. I repeat: I hope that, when my right hon. Friend winds up, he can confirm that I am right in my assumption that motion 6 will ensure that, when a Member has an interest in a question that he has tabled, it is starred or marked in some way to indicate that fact.

Mr. Newton: I can confirm that. I am afraid that my attention wandered for a moment. However, I thought that I had made that point clear in my opening speech.

Sir David Mitchell: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for confirming that point.

There is one point of omission, unless I have misunderstood. The Committee wants the Register of Members' Interests to be updated more quickly. I believe that the recommendation should go further. I believe that no Member should act in any matter in which he has an interest if he has not already put that interest on the Register. Until he has declared that interest on the Register, he should not take any action that is a result of that external retainer. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will put that suggestion on to the agenda for his Committee in future sittings. I hope that, broadly, the requirements that will be laid on Members of the House of Commons as a result of the motions today will have their parallel in the Upper House. If they did not, that would be an odd omission in the proper workings of Parliament.

I now turn to the speech made by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor). I wrote down what she said. She said that duties should engage all our attention. Those were the words she used, as she will find when she looks at Hansard tomorrow. Some Members of Parliament may have an hour or an hour and a half a day in which they may want to do what they feel like doing. If such a Member spends that time pursuing a business interest, he is making himself more able to be a more useful Member of Parliament than if he simply spent it chatting to his friends or enjoying a long lunch.

We need Members with real experience of matters outside the House. I see a difference between a Member of Parliament who is advising an outside body-- such as a trade association, a trade union or a company--about the effect of matters in Parliament on that body, and a Member who is accepting advice from that body. It is right that the House should recognise that there is a difference there, and there may be a broader consensus on that matter than may have been thought.

Motion 7 is a matter of controversy, and I believe that the Committee was right in its recommendation. We need to consider carefully the effects of the amendments, which could, on a hot July afternoon, stampede the House into ill-considered requirements which could have unsatisfactory and unforeseen effects. We have suffered considerably in recent years from uncertainty about the rules of the House and what is right or not right. It would be very unfortunate for the House if, through these amendments, it exchanged one lot of ambiguities for another.

There may well be areas where consensus can be reached. I do not find objectionable the registration of the non-financial terms of a contract entered into by a Member to provide services to an external organisation. There may be a consensus in the House that that might be

Column 1709

a way forward. But there seems to be a good deal of division in the House about publication of the amounts of payment. That, I put it to the House, is irrelevant.

The hon. Member for Dewsbury says that such amounts should be disclosed, because they show how much work a Member is doing. They do nothing of the sort. Some Members are worth £10 an hour, while others are worth £250 an hour. If a Member is paid £1,000, is it for four hours' work or 100 hours? I would not even pay £10 for some Members, but that is by the way. The amount paid is no indication of the work done, and the hon. Lady--with great respect--is quite wrong in assuming that there is a direct relationship.

The hon. Lady went on to say that the amount should be disclosed, so that it can be seen how important the work is to the Member. If a Member has nothing other than his parliamentary salary to rely on, a payment of £5,000 may be very important. But if he happens to have a private income of £20,000 or £30,000 a year, a payment of £5,000 will make practically no difference to him.

The hon. Lady is wrong in assuming that there is a direct relationship between the disclosure of the amount of money and the effect that that money has on the work that a Member is doing. It would be misleading if the House were to have such a degree of disclosure. Opposition Members wish to satisfy idle curiosity and create envy. They wish to act as levellers down in every respect. For those reasons, the House should reject the amendments and accept the motions.

6.13 pm

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North): Those listening to the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) and, just more recently, the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) would have no idea whatsoever why the Nolan committee was set up. Listening to the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, one could imagine that--apart from the two individuals concerned--there was no particular reason why the Nolan committee was set up, although the right hon. Gentleman did not say that the Prime Minister was wrong to do so. I believe--like all my Labour colleagues--that the Prime Minister was right to do what he did. But it is unfortunate that the Prime Minister has not given the sort of lead to Ministers that I would like to have seen. The Prime Minister has been asked repeatedly at Question Time if he is in favour of financial disclosure, as recommended by Nolan, but he has refused to give an answer. Apart from Tory Members, there are very few people in the country who do not recognise--as we do on the Labour Benches--that reform in the way in which we should deal with outside financial interests is absolutely essential. Is there a single newspaper in the country--I do not know of one, no matter how Tory the newspaper--that does not believe that what Nolan recommended and what we consider to be the very minimum should be put into effect?

Have any constituents written letters to say "Don't implement Nolan--it is totally wrong; it is an intrusion into privacy; you are undermining your position as Members of Parliament; it is totally alien to the parliamentary way of life"? Have the right hon. Members for Old Bexley and Sidcup and for Honiton received such letters? I very much doubt it. There is a consensus that

Column 1710

reform is necessary. Hence the reason we believe that Nolan has made a number of recommendations on financial disclosure which are essential.

Sir Peter Emery: I have received no letters at all, on either side of the argument.

Mr. Winnick: In that case--according to the right hon. Gentleman-- there is no need to proceed along the lines that the Opposition and Nolan believe to be necessary.

I must say straight away--I do not know whether I will be believed by Conservative Members or not--that I do not favour a ban on outside interests. I know that one or two of my hon. Friends are in favour of such a ban, or so they say. I can see no particular mileage for Labour Members in having full-time Tory Members. We get much more mileage the other way. One or two of my colleagues may disagree, but I do not believe that it would be useful to a Labour Government to have full-time Tory Members-- whatever the numbers who manage to get into the next Parliament--doing their best, as the Opposition will do, to undermine that Labour Government.

Such a ban would be impractical. How could we have a ban on outside activities? Could we stop a Member writing a book and getting money from it? Could we try to stop a Member receiving payment for writing articles? It is simply impractical, and I have never argued in favour of that. I do not believe that many Labour Members would argue for such a ban. To some extent, such a ban could be a denial of a Member's basic civil liberties, and I would put it as strongly as that.

I have for some years written to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Members' Interests to urge that there should be at least some financial disclosure. I am not boasting at all, as the Committee Chairman and other members of the Committee will know of my interest. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup says that we are just trying to get information on other Members, and that it is unnecessary. I do not see the matter in that light at all. Despite what the hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) said, there is a great deal of difference between someone receiving a relatively small sum--it may not be a relatively small to some of us, but that is by the way--of several hundred pounds or £2, 000, and someone receiving a very substantial sum of money. Most people would understand that there is a difference.

I believe that Nolan's recommendations on this matter were right. I am not trying to say that I proposed all these ideas before Nolan, but in writing to the Committee at the time, I said that the exact sums were not necessary, and that the amounts should be listed in bands.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith (Wealden) indicated assent .

Mr. Winnick: The right hon. Member for Wealden confirms that that was what I said.

Of course, outside interests can have an unfortunate effect. When apartheid was operated in South Africa, I had a strong suspicion--I was not alone in this view--about some, if not all, of the Tory Members who got up at every opportunity to say that they were against apartheid, but went on to act as apologists for the South African Government. I believe that they might have had a commercial interest of sorts.

Column 1711

The same applies to other countries. Those who apologise for the dictatorship in China may be expressing the sincere view that there should be no protests about what is happening in that country; on the other hand, a commercial interest may be involved--who knows? It may not be, but we have understandable suspicions. It is possible that hon. Members are involved in financial dealings with companies that have relationships with countries governed by dictatorships. When outside interests are mentioned, Conservative Members tend to say--indeed, they have said it today--that outside interests provide experience. They say, "We do not want to be full-time

parliamentarians; outside interests help us in our work." It is remarkable, is it not, that the outside interest that Tory Members defend at every opportunity is very restrictive? This is not the kind of work in which the vast majority of our constituents are engaged; very few of my constituents are involved in consultancies and directorships.

I am not talking about combining the profession of barrister or solicitor with being a Member of Parliament. I find it difficult to believe that Conservative Members engage in such activities because they want to bring their experience to the Floor of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is right. Why not be honest about this? I agree that there are some exceptions, but most hon. Members who take outside work of the kind that I have described do so for financial reasons: as my hon. Friend said, they do so because they want extra income. They do not want to rely on the basic parliamentary salary; they want a certain standard of living.

Although it is not a standard of living that I enjoy, or wish to enjoy, I appreciate that most Conservative Members want a different life style from that which they are likely to have on their current salary of £33,000 before deductions. As my hon. Friend also said, those with children at private schools will not get far on that amount. But why not be frank, and admit it? That would be far better than hiding behind the facade that outside work is all for the sake of parliamentary experience, and makes better Members of Parliament. No one really believes that.

What about the intrusion into our privacy? The other day, in a supplementary question, I expressed the view that there was no justification for the tabloids' intrusion into people's private lives, including the lives of a number of Members of Parliament--mainly Tory Members so far, although it could well be us on some future occasion.

When it comes to financial matters, however, what about the Register of Members' Interests? Is that not an intrusion into privacy? Which Tory Member today will stand up and say that it should not be allowed, as some did when it was to be established? The next step--an important step--is for us to clean up our act, so that we can be proud of the House of Commons rather than feeling that unsavoury actions have undermined our collective integrity and reputation. We should put that behind us. The very minimum is what Nolan has recommended, but it is clear that the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) is against the principle of financial disclosure, and clearly many other Conservative Members strongly agree with him.

Column 1712

I believe that we are right to press our amendments and accept the principle of Nolan. As I have said, the sooner we clean up our act as a Parliament the better it will be, not only for us and our constituents but for British democracy.

6.23 pm

Sir Peter Fry (Wellingborough): I, too, declare an interest. I have always been scrupulous about that; in fact, on one occasion, the Chairman of the Select Committee on Members' Interests said that I had declared too much rather than too little.

It seems to me that Nolan was born from knee-jerk reaction out of panic-- panic induced by media hysteria and political expediency.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you ensure that the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Sir P. Fry) declares precisely what he does? He is directly affected by the debate, but he has not declared an interest.

Madam Speaker: If hon. Members have an interest to declare, it is appropriate for them to do so in this debate.

Sir Peter Fry: Thank you, Madam Speaker. May I declare immediately that for some years I have worked a multi-company consultancy? The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) knows that perfectly well, but he may be surprised to learn that that is not the basis of my objections to some of the Nolan report.

I can live with that, however; I take the point. What I find hypocritical is the way in which the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) defended her previous directorship of a multi-company agency. She said that she had no objection to declaring what she had been paid. That is not the point, however: under Nolan, she would be prohibited from being a director of such an agency. Was she ashamed of the work that she did for the agency? If she was not, why is it such a terrible sin today?

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I said that I accepted the Nolan recommendations, not because I am ashamed of anything that I have done in the past, but because other hon. Members have breached rules that many of us thought already existed. I think that the Nolan recommendations would help to clean up everyone's act.

Sir Peter Fry: That is interesting. It seems that the hon. Lady thought that the rules already existed, and therefore does not think that any new rules are needed.

The hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) said that we should give something up, but declared that no one had paid her anything. It is very easy to give up something that one has never enjoyed, so hers is hardly an effective argument. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said that we should do what the press wants. I have no doubt that the press is very interested in the hon. Gentleman's sex life; would he allow the publication of articles about how he behaves in the privacy of his own home? As the hon. Gentleman knows, his is a stupid argument.

The important point that has emerged from the debate is that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is absolutely right: it is very difficult to define what should be declared and what should not.

Column 1713

Let me say to two members of my party--one a former Cabinet Minister--that if they seriously believe that all hon. Members who are company directors are made company directors because people like their faces, they are abusing their own position. Hon. Members on both sides of the House are given company directorships basically because they are Members of Parliament. I do not wish to name them, but I know that that is the case.

In those circumstances, it becomes exceedingly difficult for any company director to give even the faintest advice to his fellow directors or his company that could possibly impinge on his position as a Member of Parliament--if we accept the Opposition's definition. He would be put in the ludicrous position of being unable to speak in the House on many issues.

Let me say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) that it is all very well to say that hon. Members should not take part in a debate when they have an interest. What about general issues such as company taxation or pension law? According to my right hon. Friend, it would be wrong for any hon. Member who was a director of a company affected by such issues to make a speech about them. I consider that an unfair and unworkable restriction on comment. As has emerged in the debate, what is important is whether advocacy--being paid to pursue an interest in the House--should be banned, and whether it should be subject to a declaration of income. We have already heard quite enough arguments to show that that requires much more detailed consideration.

I see no difference between a Member of Parliament who advises a trade association and a Member of Parliament who advises a trade union. I am aware of no reason why a Member of Parliament who assists a trade association is in any way different from a Member of Parliament who is a lawyer, whose law firm advises clients, or an accountant, whose accountancy firm advises clients, or a company director, who advises his fellow directors. That is the type of problem that we must solve in the present discussion, and I hope that the Select Committee will do it.

I am sick and tired of the hypocrisy that comes from Opposition Members. [Hon. Members:-- "Hear, Hear."] One would suppose that Labour Members of Parliament never did anything wrong, and were never influenced. I have sat on a Select Committee and watched Labour Members read the questions prepared by their trade unions, and if that is not trying to influence the course of the Select Committee, I do not know what is. So let us get away from the idea that the only hypocrisy is among Conservative Members. There is just as much among Opposition Members.

I do agree with the Opposition about one thing. It is important that we now get it right. Whether we like Nolan being created or not, we have to live with it, and presumably we must make it work in a way that is acceptable to the majority of Members. There is a great danger in going too far. The further we go, the more likely it is that we shall end up with total declaration of income, which will undoubtedly mean that the quality of people who want to stand in elections for this place will go down.

I commend my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for the motion that he has placed before the House. It is clear, from the composition of the Committee and the contributions that those Members have made, that they

Column 1714

are learning of the difficulties, which I and others have outlined this afternoon, in trying to define the various types of consultancies that should take place. I have faith in the Committee. I certainly have no faith in the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Dewsbury.

6.30 pm

Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West): The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Sir P. Fry) said that, if transparency comes in--if the truth about what is happening to Members' income is known--the reputation of the House will suffer. Many of us would regard that as an admission of guilt.

The problem, as my hon. Friends have said, is a matter of income--not only income from outside sources, but total income--and the sums that Conservative Members are paid from outside the House affect that.

I have before me a list of 156 hon. Members who voted against our increases in wages and allowances, but who declare very substantial interests. I could read that list out, but it would take all the time available to me. Those 156 hon. Members have said that £31,000 is a proper income for Members of Parliament. If they believe that, there is no reason why they should take sums of money from outside. What sums of money? I declare an interest--in receiving occasional fees from journalism and broadcasting, but never more than £5,000 a year. I am not sponsored, and I never will be. Conservative Members use that argument against us. The usual sums of money that come in from trade union sponsorship are very small and in almost all cases go directly to the constituency.

I believe that the Opposition should break the direct link between Members of Parliament and individual unions, because Members of Parliament should not be for hire. I know of no union that pays more than £1,000, but one Conservative Member has confessed that he receives £200,000 in income, not from what he was doing previously, and not from any job, but because he is a Member of Parliament. It is crucial that those sums are declared. One Labour Member declares 12 jars of honey per year. It is reasonable to assume that the people who give 12 jars of honey do not get as much work out of their Member of Parliament as do the companies who pay £200,000 a year hiring a Conservative Member.

It was a sad day for the House when it approved a Select Committee recommendation that there should be transparency on Lloyd's, but its decision was not respected by very senior Members, including an ex-Prime Minister, who said that they would ignore it and that they would not give the details about their income. That was a disgraceful act against the reputation of the House of Commons, and it is what we are discussing today.

Our reputation as the mother of Parliaments has been besmirched by Conservative Members who have become used to huge incomes from outside this building. We are elected as Members for our own constituency and to represent our parties. We were not elected as Members for the transport and general workers party or the general, municipal, boilermakers and allied trades party or megagreed plc; we are here to represent our constituents.

I shall give a practical example of a road safety issue that led to hon. Members being assailed on one side by trade unions arguing a particular case. The example

Column 1715

concerns bull bars, with which I have been very much involved. A union in my constituency represents people who manufacture bull bars. Jobs were at stake. If I had been sponsored by that union, it would have put pressure on me to act in a certain way. On the other side, the firms that manufacture the bull bars would, through their trade associations, have brought pressure to bear on a Conservative Member of Parliament.

Who speaks for the victims of the accidents caused by bull bars? They cannot pay to hire any Member of the House. We do not know who they are; there is no interest there. If hon. Members say that I must speak because of my trade union--I criticise my own party in that regard--or that I must speak because of the firm, because otherwise no one will speak for them, I ask, "Who speaks for all those interests such as the charities and the people who cannot afford to hire Members of Parliament?"

The message of today's debate, and the message of Nolan, is that the country is sick of the idea that Members are paid--and paid handsomely--to represent interests. Labour Members must sever the link between unions and individual Members, which is a venal sin. The sins on the other side are mortal because the sums involved are very great.

Mr. Roy Hughes (Newport, East): I want to remind my hon. Friend, who is my colleague in Newport, that, throughout the long time that I have served in the House, I have been sponsored by the Transport and General Workers Union. I have never personally received a penny from that trade union. Any money that has been received has gone directly to my constituency party. My union card is just about my most treasured possession, and I fully support the principle of sponsorship of Members.

Mr. Flynn: I have for some time been president of the constituency party to which my hon. Friend refers. Of course there was nothing wrong with the tradition because it was established when Members had no pay. I am saying that the Government are now using that arrangement as a stick to beat us with and to undermine the principle. Such a link is not worth retaining, although we must maintain a strong link between the trade union movement and our party.

I am grateful for being called, rather unexpectedly, in the debate. The matter is of enormous importance, and it is a great shame that the Conservative Members who have spoken are obviously speaking for their interests--for their wallets--rather than for the proud principles of the mother of Parliaments.

6.37 pm

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford): I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who chaired the Select Committee on Standards in Public Life, on the way in which he handled it. Throughout our proceedings, there was constructive debate by hon. Members from all the political parties represented, which I found interesting and informative.

In some senses, I arrived at the Committee with apprehensions and anxieties, but during the debate I saw us shape and reshape aspects of the Nolan report so that

Column 1716

we delivered to the House today, especially in the first six resolutions, something of which I think we all may feel justifiably proud.

I am especially proud of the report that we have delivered in respect of the Commissioner and the new Committee. As my right hon. Friend knows, I was especially keen on, and pursued, the idea of natural justice throughout that part of our discussions.

The thing that I am most interested in--I am keen that the House should recognise it--is that we shall have replaced what I believe is the flawed system that we have now, which is in some senses a form of kangaroo court for accused Members, with a system whereby the individual concerned, as and when they are brought before either the Commissioner or the Committee, will have the right to have someone with them as an adviser and the opportunity to cross-examine those who make allegations.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman misrepresents the wording in the report.

Mr. Duncan Smith: If he reads the report, the hon. Gentleman will find that it does say that. We must address immediately the key question of the Committee and the Parliamentary Commissioner. The matter of the Commissioner may be linked to the code of conduct. Perhaps we should think about it a little more. One or two hon. Members have drawn my attention to the fact that, in paragraph 14, we accept that the principal duties of the Parliamentary Commissioner should include:

"Receiving and investigating complaints about the conduct of Members (whether related directly to alleged breaches of the Code or not) and reporting his findings to the Committee through the Sub-Committee appointed for that purpose."

I have talked to the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) about that issue and he referred to it earlier. We should not create a charter whereby disgruntled citizens with an axe to grind pursue hon. Members and make obscure and absurd accusations against them simply because they disagree with the way in which hon. Members go about their duties. Constituents have the right to decide at the end of the life of a Parliament whether they like or dislike the way in which their representatives have performed. I hope that we shall clear up that matter during further deliberation.

The critical motion--7--has caused the greatest amount of discussion and argument today. I think that, in many ways, we have managed to miss the point and the real problem. I listened to what the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) said. At the end of a good speech, she suddenly delivered a warning--if not a threat--about tonight's vote. I accept that the hon. Lady is trying to galvanise the attitudes, the instincts and perhaps even the fears of hon. Members in an attempt to get them to think carefully about how they will vote. I have thought about what I intend to do, and I have absolutely no problem with voting down the amendments to motion 7.

One of the amendments asks us to examine the principle. I believe that it is quite impossible for us to implement the Nolan report in principle because it is impossible to ascertain what that principle is. The problem with Nolan--it will require further discussion--

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Delay.

Mr. Duncan Smith: If the hon. Gentleman would engage his brain before his mouth, he might learn

Column 1717

something. The problem is that, in its rush to complete the report, the Nolan committee did not address the real problem. Our constituents are most concerned about certain reprehensible activities, which have been reported in the press. The 1947 resolution clearly states that advocacy should not be allowed, but the Register of Members' Interests has confused the issue. The principle must be that paid advocacy should not be allowed, but that principle is not enshrined in the amendments.

During the Committee hearings, I proposed an alternative which appears in paragraph 74 of the report. I have not amended it tonight, although it may have some flaws, because I intend to raise it myself and to force the House to decide whether to accept my proposals at a later stage. We must look at the 1947 resolution, define "advocacy" and then rule it out. It could take the form of being forced by an outside interest to put down written questions, to table or sign early-day motions or to table amendments to legislation. There may be further discussion about the issue; I accept that.

The point is that I will not vote for the amendments tonight because I believe that we need to go further than Nolan has gone. We must consider the problem with regard to hon. Members' outside interests. There has been much talk about the amount of money that hon. Members earn. For most hon. Members, who are remunerated with small amounts of money from a variety of different sources, such as trade unions, consultancies or multiple client agencies, the result is much the same. The fact is that that should not happen. The best way to tackle the problem is to cut out the cancer at source: we must put a halt to advocacy. We should not try to define what companies are good or bad. Hon. Members will find ways around that. They will write new contracts and they will register their interests in a different manner. It concerns me that the Nolan report provides a means of avoiding the controls that are in place at the moment. The Register of Members' Interests is far more stringent than Nolan would have us accept. There are routes through it--the definitions are ill thought out.

We must have more time to consider the matter. We undertake to give the House the opportunity to reach a decision by the end of the Session. There is no question that that undertaking will be avoided. I shall put forward the argument that we must deal with advocacy and I hope that hon. Members will support me when the time comes. Tonight is not the time to put down a point of principle because that point of principle does not exist.

When we have completed our deliberations, we must ensure that our proposals are workable, that they will stand the test of time and that they will put a stop to the constant backbiting. Hon. Members from all political parties represent their constituents very honourably, even though they may have outside interests. The reality is that, most of the time, this place behaves with great dignity and honour. I think that it is high time that we enshrined that principle. We must offer the House a workable proposal that will stand the test of time.

6.47 pm

Mr. Jeff Rooker (Birmingham, Perry Barr): This has been a much better tempered debate than the previous one on 18 May. I think that I have missed only one speech by Conservative Members, who have certainly been less hostile to the concept of Nolan than they were on that

Column 1718

day. In the main--I accept that there will be some resistance--hon. Members seem to accept the thrust of the Select Committee's report and the majority of the agreed amendments.

I refer in particular to natural justice and representation before the Privileges Committee, to which the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) referred. That matter has been raised before. The Committee did appear to be a kangaroo court, but the Select Committee has now made recommendations about how the new investigatory process will work in order to achieve representation and natural justice. Although it does not involve full cross-examination, it is a much fairer and more acceptable system. There will be speedier justice because the new Privileges Committee will be able to meet when the House is not sitting.

That said, it is almost a case of the lull before the storm. Judging from the comments that have been made both inside and outside the Chamber, the end game for most hon. Members is how to kill off the two central issues that divide the House and upon which we shall vote tonight: the banning of multi-client lobbies and financial disclosure. That is the bottom line and that is where the battle lines will be drawn. The problem will not go away after today. Time may be won or it may not, but, at some point, the issue will return to haunt the Government.

I do not have time to refer to all the speeches, but I completely reject the former Prime Minister's allegation that the Opposition are trying to pry into the affairs of others. We want disclosure of activities relating to the public position of Members of Parliament--nothing more, nothing less.

Mr. Quentin Davies (Stamford and Spalding) rose --

Mr. Rooker: I also reject completely the suggestion that my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) was threatening Conservative Members. Tomorrow, this debate will be fully reported in the press and hon. Members who seek to frustrate or oppose disclosure, which will only be from November anyway, on the banded basis of the money or multi-client lobby, will be listed and questions are bound to be asked.

Mr. Quentin Davies rose --

Mr. Rooker: The Prime Minister set up the Nolan committee to work quickly, and it has. After the Select Committee reported on 11 July, a leader in The Independent stated:

"The fuss that Tory MPs are making is remarkable, considering how mild is the dose of probity that Nolan has prescribed."

Mr. Quentin Davies rose --

Madam Speaker: Order. My understanding is that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) does not wish to give way.

Mr. Rooker: I do not wish to give way, Madam Speaker.

It was stated in The Times on 11 July that

"it was clear long before the Nolan report was published in May that its recommendations on MPs' duty to disclose their outside interests was likely to face hostility in the Commons."

The Times commented that lack of leadership by the Prime Minister, in not saying specifically whether he agreed with Nolan, has allowed dissent on the

Next Section

Home Page