| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
7.1 pm
Mrs. Ann Taylor (Dewsbury): I start by joining those hon. Members who have complimented the Leader of the House on the way in which he chaired the Committee. Our meetings over the past few months have been purposeful. They may have been slow on occasions, but that was often because of the detailed work we were carrying out in order to try to ensure that the guidelines we produced were as consistent and comprehensive as possible.
The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) said that he was surprised by the number and length of our meetings. Had he served on the previous Committee, he might have been relieved that our meetings were not more numerous, or on a daily basis. He might also have been relieved that the Committee is not, as far as we know, sitting in the parliamentary recess.
Much work has been done in the Committee. I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who has taken a keen interest in the subject, whether he was going to speak. He said that he was not, as he thought that the report represented "good, hard, nitty gritty work by the Committee". I report that to members of the Committee as a compliment to all involved. It certainly felt like good, hard work, and I think that it has been productive.
The objectives we set ourselves were, first, to establish a code of conduct to lay down principles by which the actions of Members of Parliament could be judged in future. Secondly, we tried to write guidelines that would help in the detailed practical application of that code of conduct, so that, if hon. Members were in any doubt about what they would or would not be able to do following a visit, or if they had a particular interest, there would be advance guidance, and they would know exactly where they stood. The third--extremely important--objective that we have tried to stress is that all Members of the House have an obligation to take it upon themselves to ensure that they do not act in a way that would breach the letter or the spirit of the rules we have laid down.
I hope that what we have established is clear enough. I also hope that all hon. Members will read the code of conduct and the guidance notes. One thing that all members of the Committee have learned over the past few months is that many of us have forgotten some of the rules that existed, such as those relating to Members' interests. Many colleagues may not have read all the rules that existed, or understood the implications.
A couple of Conservative Members have taken issue both with the remit of the Committee and with how far it has gone. At this stage, I simply remind hon. Members why we got into the situation in the first place. It was
owing to the actions of a couple of hon. Members in the case that has become known as "cash for questions". That led the Prime Minister to establish the Nolan Committee.
It was the Nolan committee's report that led to resolutions in, and decisions by, the House designed to change the rules on registration and advocacy, and to ensure that whatever we did involved as much transparency as possible, in order to start to restore public confidence in Members of Parliament, because that confidence had been so badly affected by the "cash for questions" case. Public opinion demanded that the House set its affairs in order. The public's opinion of Members of Parliament is often jaundiced because of past incidents.
I hope that the code of conduct and the guidelines that we have established will work and will be practical--I think and hope they will be. I do not preclude the need for revisiting some of the issues, as other aspects may arise from time to time. The Committee may have to see how the code works, and try to ensure that the guidelines are as precise as they should be.
It is interesting that, when the code of conduct was published last week, there was little press or public interest in it. That might have been because there were no spin doctors explaining to the press exactly what had happened--the press seem to have to be spoon-fed on all occasions. It might also have been because no member of the Committee leaked the document, which may be unusual these days.
The inquiries that I have received about the code of conduct have been strange. People have sometimes asked whether Members of Parliament had any rules before--I think that Members of Parliament have sometimes had the same thought. Of course there have been rules, and of course the majority of Members of Parliament have been acting and operating in a perfectly honourable manner, but because of what had happened in the past, it was important that we consolidated the resolutions of the House, brought them together in one document, laid out the code of conduct and issued as many guidelines as possible to ensure that the rules were clear and there were no escape clauses.
The hon. Member for Cheltenham mentioned the recent publicity surrounding the Premier club, where contributions are made to the Conservative party in exchange for meetings with the Prime Minister. I referred to the need to have statements on that subject when I spoke in this morning's Adjournment debate.
The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) tried to say that, because John Beckwith had spoken about his lack of interest in social security offices on the "World at One" programme--although I think that he confirmed his interest in Ministry of Defence properties--it was not an issue.
The issue is not simply whether one business man has found ways of contacting the Prime Minister and has an interest in certain sales that are currently pending.
Bigger issues of principle are involved, which is why I believe that the issue of political party funding should have been referred to the Nolan committee when we first suggested it some time ago. Today is not the day to go into all those details, although I think that we will have to return to the issues on another occasion, and that we should have had the inquiry before, and not after, the next general election.
Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West):
On this, the last day before the summer recess, the accusations that have been made against the office of the Prime Minister are the most serious that we have heard since the most recent Liberal Government, when there were suggestions that Lloyd George was selling honours for cash. The suggestion now is that the Prime Minister is using and prostituting his office for his party's financial gain. There can hardly be a more serious charge than that.
I am sure that, when inquiries are made, we will find that that is not the case, and that the Prime Minister has not prostituted his high office for his financial gain. However, is it not a matter about which we need an inquiry urgently?
Mrs. Taylor:
My hon. Friend is right to say that we need an inquiry urgently. We need an inquiry into the entire range of party funding. The Premier club, however, raises questions that go outside the scope of this debate, such as whether it should be a matter for tax officials and for company auditors if companies are offsetting the costs of the dinners and their club membership against their tax liability. That is not the main thrust of this debate. Had the entire issue been referred to the Nolan committee earlier, however, we might have avoided the need to raise such questions, because such practices would have diminished.
Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire):
Would it not be a little more sensible for the hon. Lady to find out a little more about this matter before commenting on it? I would not criticise for a moment the lavish dinners that the Labour party has held to raise funds and its profile, and to improve its contacts with the City and its donations from industry. All those activities are entirely legitimate, and I do not for one minute impugn anyone's integrity for doing or accepting such things. I ask only for a similarly charitable attitude from her towards the other side the House.
Mrs. Taylor:
I suggest only that all parties should be completely open about the scale and sources of domestic donations and of those from abroad. We have always found it very difficult to achieve any agreement with the other side of the House on that point, which is why, as I said, the matter should have been referred to Lord Nolan some time ago.
Mr. Campbell-Savours:
I find it quite remarkable that Conservative Members resist the proposition of an inquiry into political funding--because it will happen under a Labour Government. So why not accept the proposition? Let us get on with it. Why be seen to be dragged and protesting, when the inevitable outcome is that such a debate will take place?
Mrs. Taylor:
My hon. Friend is quite right, and not for the first time. It is only a matter of timing. Lord Nolan is, indeed, due to examine the whole issue. The problem is that he will not examine it until after the next general election. I think that the electorate have a right to know about party funding before any general election.
The hon. Members for Eltham and for Keighley (Mr. Waller) expressed some concern about hon. Members being able to undertake foreign visits for fact-finding purposes. We should make it clear that there are no restrictions at all on what hon. Members can do.
Restrictions apply only if an hon. Member has had a visit paid for. The restriction is simply that, for a period, the hon. Member should not initiate any action that would bring benefit to the sponsor of that visit. I think that that is a very minimalist approach. The approach is not over-burdensome, and it will not inhibit genuine fact-finding missions, which are frequently necessary.
The hon. Member for Keighley made a couple of points, during which I felt it right to interrupt him. I am grateful to him, as I am to the Leader of the House, for giving way. The hon. Member made two points--one of which was of concern to him, and another which was of concern to a colleague--that show that not all hon. Members fully understand all the implications of the current rules or of the new rules.
An hon. Member who receives a pension or undertakes employment that is totally unrelated to their membership of the House is not restricted in his or her activities. An hon. Member who goes abroad at the request of someone abroad who pays for that visit is prohibited not from speaking in the House but from initiating any action for a certain period.
The hon. Member for Keighley said that, on one visit, he was not sure where the money had originated. I must say that the onus is on each hon. Member to be sure who has paid for a visit that he undertakes, and that it is somewhat foolish to undertake visits on any other basis.
The hon. Member for Eltham talked about sporting activities. He also cited an English Heritage party in his constituency. All hon. Members, as constituency Members of Parliament, are entitled to normal hospitality in our own constituencies. Clearly, however, there are problems with sporting occasions, and with estimating their value. On this matter--as indeed on every other matter--we now have the Parliamentary Commissioner, who can give advice to hon. Members. In the first instance, it is to him that all hon. Members should go if we are seeking advice on that basis.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |