| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Although we have the privilege of saying what we believe to be right in this Chamber, if someone who has been referred to has specifically denied the report in The Guardian on the radio today, it would be courteous to people outside the House if the accusation were not read into the record.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): I am sure that the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) will have noted the point that has been made.
Mr. Jones: I am sure that Mr. Beckwith denies those reports and I hope that they are not true, but they show that the position must be dealt with and clarified. If people who take part in Premier club dinners are bidding for privatisation schemes, and the Cabinet decide who will be the successful bidders, there is a conflict of interests. That is exactly what the Nolan committee was set up to stamp out, what the public find distasteful, and the kind of practice that brings the House into disrepute. I hope that there is no truth in it.
I prefer the rightful indignation that the eminent journalist, Tom Brown, expressed in yesterday's Daily Record, where he said:
Overseas visits are covered in paragraphs 27 and 28 on page 18. There is a clear difference between visits undertaken on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, which are part of our duties as Members of Parliament, and trips such as the "jolly" to Malta recently reported in The Independent on Sunday. Select Committee visits play an important part in informing hon. Members on issues on which they must report to Parliament. Foreign affairs and defence are two vital subjects on which hon. Members must be properly briefed. Britain's overseas aid programme supports many countries throughout the world, so the House has a duty to ensure that the receiving nations spend the money prudently. That is why the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and other publicly funded organisations occasionally send delegations. Britain is also responsible, through the European Union, for helping emerging democracies.
Last January, I was one of six parliamentary observers at the elections to the new Palestinian council. It was certainly no "jolly". Apart from the blizzard in Jerusalem, the town of Nablus to which I was deployed was dry--no alcohol--and had only one hotel. The hotel was full and I found myself sharing a room with a communist parliamentarian from Portugal named Reuben. I hasten to add that we had separate beds. On polling day, observers were up at 5 am and on duty until the following morning. It really was no "jolly".
Such visits are an important part of our job and, as such, the Committee rightly decided that they should be exempt from registration and the advocacy rule. Although right hon. and hon. Members may still accept visits paid for by companies or foreign Governments, they must register each visit and may not initiate any parliamentary action relevant to that company or country.
Another important exception to the advocacy rule involves visits to United Kingdom dependencies, such as Gibraltar. On page 30, paragraph 62(7), the code states that
The third area that I shall mention briefly is paid outside employment. I cannot understand how hon. Members find the time to do justice to a job outside Parliament--perhaps my constituents in Cheltenham are more demanding than most. At the end of the week, I find that I have little or no time to spend with my family, let alone to do another job. The work of Members of Parliament is becoming more full time and the hours that we spend working for our constituents and for our country should reflect that fact. Although it is not stated in the code of conduct, I believe that our duties here should constitute our main income. I do not seek to ban outside interests altogether, as I believe that they help us to keep in contact with the real world beyond Westminster.
Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham):
The speech by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) is unlikely to have that effect. That kind of speech may go down well at the Liberal Democrat party conference, but it is not appreciated in the House. If hon. Members choose to repeat allegations from a newspaper article, they have an obligation to listen to what is said by the principals involved. The person involved in that case made his views clear on the radio at lunchtime today. The hon. Gentleman could have checked the allegations by making a simple telephone call. As he obviously spent much time preparing extensive notes for his speech, I suspect that he could have uncovered Mr. Beckwith's response.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington):
What did he say?
Mr. Bottomley:
I do not intend to repeat what was said on the radio. I simply put on record the fact that someone who prepares his notes as extensively as the hon. Gentleman did, should take into account what is said outside this place.
I shall make three non-partisan points--although one might be considered, wrongly, to be partisan. The first concerns overseas visits by Members of Parliament. It is sad that a growing number of Members of Parliament do not know much about the world beyond the United Kingdom. I am glad that few hon. Members have experienced war--which is one reason why previous generations travelled. However, few hon. Members have experience of other Commonwealth countries, which can add to the quality of debate.
It is important that people travel whenever possible, and I do not think that we should rely simply on the opportunities provided by the Inter-Parliamentary Union, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and political observer trips. Perhaps this is not the right time to suggest it, but I believe that Members of Parliament should have the opportunity to travel almost where they want and when they want, perhaps every few years. It is important to know what the world is like: one can then interpret what is broadcast in the media and what appears in the newspapers according to one's personal experience.
I have had a number of overseas trips during my 21 years in Parliament. Some were balanced: I visited Israel and the west bank with the Conservative Friends of Israel, and I later travelled to Lebanon and the west bank with the Palestine Liberation Organisation. That experience proved immensely important and useful when considering middle east issues.
I also visited El Salvador three times. I first travelled to that country with the parliamentary human rights group, which was funded by charities, in an attempt to delay the assassination of an archbishop. On my second visit, I represented the British Council of Churches at the archbishop's funeral mass. On the third occasion, I attended the free and fair elections that aimed to prevent assassinations of archbishops and many others. That trip was paid for by the Salvador Government, who wished to have credible observers in attendance.
I have no hesitation in declaring those trips and their sources of finance. I do not want Members of Parliament to be discouraged from taking trips because an entry in the Register of Members' Interests is interpreted as a bad thing. I urge hon. Members to apply the local newspaper test. They should ask themselves, "Am I doing something that I would mind being reported in my local newspaper?" If they would not mind, they should tell the local newspaper; and, if they would mind, they should either tell the local newspaper, or not do it. People expect a culture of openness.
The rules and the changes they embody take us backwards in one sense--I do not wish this point to be considered party political. The trade unions and other socialist societies set up the Labour party honourably. In the past, Labour Members were encouraged to state that they were sponsored by trade unions under the Hastings agreement.
As I understand it, that meant that up to 80 per cent. of candidates' election expenses could be met by a trade union. I am not saying that all trade unions sponsored candidates to that extent, but I think that I am correct in saying that that meant potentially £5,000 in funding at a general election and £16,000 at a by-election, as we have lifted the spending limits for by-elections.
"Any businessman who forks out £100,000 for the dubious privilege of having dinner with John Major should be a candidate for instant dismissal by his shareholders."
Two months ago, in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), the Prime Minister said that he had devolved responsibility for party fund raising more than three years ago to avoid possible conflicts of interest. If one believes any of the newspaper reports, that does not seem to be the truth. Clearly, the Prime Minister did not mean to mislead the House. Why, then, did he say those words to my right hon. Friend? If we are to rebuild the House's reputation, such activity must cease and all Members of Parliament must stick to a code that is fair and is seen to be fair and above board.
"visits to a UK dependency at the expense of the Government of that territory must be registered and declared",
but that
"such visits shall not be taken into account when applying the advocacy rule".
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |