| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mrs. Ann Taylor (Dewsbury): I wish to clarify one point. The Hastings agreement, which the hon. Gentleman described accurately, has been terminated by the Labour party, so there is no such thing as a sponsored Member of Parliament. The rules laid down by the Committee about contributions to election funds or annual contributions to constituency parties are the same for all hon. Members.
Mr. Bottomley: I am not trying to argue against the Labour party or against contributions to constituency political associations or parties--I hope that I have made that plain. However, openness is the key.
Money that is given to meet expenses at election time or on an annual basis can only advantage the candidate. Conservative associations and Liberal Democrat and Labour constituency parties do not exist as legal entities at election time--there are candidates and their agents, and that is it. I hope that the situation will be clarified further in time. I shall happily engage in discussions with people in an attempt to achieve that.
Mr. Campbell-Savours:
If that is the case, am I correct in suspecting that the hon. Gentleman is in favour of Lord Nolan's examining the question of political funding? He refers to funding local Conservative associations and Labour and Liberal Democrat constituency parties, and to money being donated at a local level. Therefore, is he in favour of the inquiry for which many hon. Members have been pressing?
Mr. Bottomley:
I am not in favour of referring that matter to Nolan. This is not the time for me to provide a series of answers, but I believe that the current rules lead to greater obscurity, and are based on a legal fiction.
Finally, I refer to category 5, dealing with gifts, benefits and hospitality. Due partly to my peculiar position, my entry in the Register of Members' Interests refers to the fact that I am the recipient of a fair amount of corporate,
sporting and cultural hospitality, both in my own right and through my wife. I am grateful for that. However, it is difficult to know how seriously one should treat the detail in the category.
Mr. Gary Waller (Keighley):
I welcome the publication of the code of conduct and guide to the rules, which will help hon. Members, but I want to refer to the application of the advocacy rule, because its implementation is already leading to consequences that I cannot imagine the Committee can have fully intended. May I give two or three instances of what I mean?
The other day, I heard from a Labour Member who came to the House relatively late in life that he was caught by the advocacy rule, because he is the recipient of a pension that he receives as a result of a lifelong career in the mining industry. As a result of that pension, which is properly declared, he is apparently precluded from initiating actions. He receives a continuing benefit as a result of his employment in that industry. That is my reading of the matter.
Mrs. Ann Taylor:
May I point out that anyone who receives a pension from previous employment does not receive money in his or her capacity as a Member, and that therefore no restrictions would apply?
Mr. Waller:
As I understand it, that Labour Member nevertheless receives a benefit that is related to an industry.
Mr. Waller:
If I am wrong, that Labour Member has clearly been misled, because he felt precluded from initiating actions. In a forum in the House, he drew attention to that point, but if he was wrong and has been misled, I am delighted to hear it.
May I give one or two other examples? Two or three years ago, I was invited by the Kashmir committee of Copenhagen in Denmark to speak at a one-day conference, which I did at some inconvenience. It meant flying out early in the morning. I saw little of Copenhagen. What I saw was from the taxi that took me from the airport to the conference centre, and from the one that took me on the return journey.
On my return, I properly declared the visit, and it appeared in the Register of Members' Interests as a one-off "benefit", but, as I understand it, as a result of the proposal that is to be implemented with the introduction of the 1997 Register, if I were to make such a visit in future, I would be prevented from initiating any action connected with Kashmir for one year.
That seems wrong, bearing it in mind that many of my constituents are Kashmiris and that they expect me to represent their interests, among those of my other constituents, in the House. I hope that the Committee will consider that concern, because it would be regrettable if Members were prevented from taking part in such visits for that reason.
Mr. Newton:
May I establish one point, because it would make a difference, and I would be hesitant to make snap judgments anyway? Did my hon. Friend say that his visit was funded by an organisation in Denmark that was interested in Kashmir, by a Government--I am not quite sure whether one can talk about the Kashmir Government--or by what might be described as a non-governmental organisation? If the latter is true, I suggest that he considers paragraph (e) on page 32, where his reservations might be put to rest.
Mr. Waller:
On this occasion, I am not sure, to be honest, where the money originated. It certainly came from the Kashmir committee in Denmark, but that committee would, I imagine, to some extent have been funded by the Government of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, so there is a certain grey area here. Hon. Members may feel inhibited in accepting an invitation to go on such a visit.
More generally, Members may be invited to visit a country in which they have had a long interest. Today, I participated in a radio programme with another Labour Member, who for more than a decade has been a member of an all-party group connected with a particular country. He was invited by the Government of that country to visit it. He probably knows more about that country than almost any other hon. Member. As a result of the implementation of these rules, if he were to accept such visits in future, he would be prevented from speaking about that country for a year.
Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent):
It seems not only that what my hon. Friend is saying is important, but that it would give the House an opportunity to say that, where the code is invoked, it is possible for the House in a particular debate to waive that restriction in the circumstances. I wonder whether that is the intention of the code.
Mr. Waller:
The code seems to be clear and unequivocal. It is important that we should have transparency. Members who speak in the House should understand that everyone appreciates where they come from, and that they may have interests that have to be declared, but to prevent Members from speaking because they sought to improve the extent of their knowledge by accepting an invitation to visit a country seems to be going too far.
In general terms, the public would like full-time Members--we often hear that--but at the same time they want Members to know something of what goes on outside the House, and to have experience and an understanding of other countries. We must find a happy medium between those two principles. I wonder whether the advocacy rule in its present form goes too far, and whether it includes too many visits or benefits. When I
say "benefits", I use the term in the way in which it is expressed in the document. Many would not necessarily regard them as benefits.
Mr. Campbell-Savours:
May I help the hon. Gentleman? He should try to draw a distinction between speaking in the House and initiating proceedings. In this whole area, that distinction is clearly drawn. If he reads the report in that sense, he will find that he has far more liberty on these issues than he thinks he has. I reassure him, because there is strong support for his case, and we believe that the report's recommendations meet all his concerns.
Mr. Waller:
I fully appreciate that it is possible for a Member to speak in the House, provided that he or she has not initiated the debate or motion, or tabled a question. There is still a considerable inhibition. It should be unnecessary to prevent me from initiating a debate for a year after I have visited a country and found out a lot about it, provided that I have put it on the record and everyone knows about it. We have gone a little over the boundary that was necessary to ensure that there was full transparency. I just hope that the Committee keeps the matter under review.
Sir David Mitchell (North-West Hampshire):
I declare an interest, having served on the Committee.
I should like to join others in paying tribute to the Chairman of the Committee, the Leader of the House. He has had a pell-mell round of meetings, coming from one and going to another. He has always seemed to be on top of the agenda, and has had an extraordinary ability to carry the whole Committee with him with a bluff common sense. In that, he has been fully supported--I pay tribute to this--by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), the shadow Leader of the House. It was an unusual Committee in many ways--very much the House at its best. It was non-partisan, and was seeking to safeguard the respect of the House outside this place.
The Committee has fully and fairly discharged the responsibilities under its remit, but I have one reservation. It concerns not so much the Committee's work, as its remit in relation to the resolutions of the House banning advocacy. In future years, the House may look back and feel that it has lost something.
I have never been a paid consultant to any industry or organisation outside the House, but the consultant to a trade union or trading association performs three clear roles. He holds a watching brief for that industry, advising it if anything is about to be raised in the House that would affect it--such as regulations, EC regulations or commercial interests that might damage it. Secondly, the consultant familiarises himself with the working of the industry so that, if there is a problem, he thoroughly understands it. Thirdly, he raises in the House matters that would affect that industry.
6.58 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |