Parliamentary Standards Bill

Earlier in our deliberations, I found myself moving an amendment which had the support of both Front Benches and, I think, of the Liberal Democrats and a large number of Cross-Benchers, which is not a very usual situation for me. However, I now seem to find myself moving an amendment which is opposed by both Front Benches—my own and that of the Government. The proposal which I wish to put before your Lordships is that the code should require members to register information about financial interests in a register to be maintained by IPSA. The financial interests of a large number of Members of another place, and of some in this place, too, are those of being a Minister of the Crown. I was a Minister of the Crown for quite a long time, throughout Margaret Thatcher’s Prime Ministership and into that of John Major, which I declare as a past interest. The present arrangements do not require one, as far as I know, to declare that one is a Minister of the Crown in the documents. However, it is not only a huge financial interest, in the sense that one is paid more than a Back-Bench Member of Parliament, but also a big consumer of one’s time. At one point, I was Security Minister in Northern Ireland; I spent part of the week in Belfast, part in London and part in my constituency. My constituents had every right to say to me—fortunately, comparatively few of them did—"What are you doing swanning off to Belfast and London? You’re not looking after us". A very large number of hours in the week were taken up with my responsibilities in Northern Ireland, and the same was true of the various other jobs that I did. There is no doubt that it is a very big financial interest. In that sense, it should be declared in the code alongside any outside interests that a Member may have been pursuing a professional or other financial interest. I say in passing that it is in the interests of the House of Commons and good government that Back-Bench Members of Parliament are able to retain other jobs as well as their job of a Member of Parliament. I am a chartered accountant by original profession. I am extremely rusty and I know that if you do not practise your profession there quite quickly comes a time when you lose ground and are not up to date with the latest things. However much you read the professional press and so on and talk to others, you get out of date quite quickly. It is therefore in the interests of the body politic that Member of Parliaments should have continuing interests, some of which will bring them financial rewards. The two are by no means incompatible—and the case of Ministers makes the point, because a Minister, whichever department he or she is in, is obliged to spend a lot of time on ministerial work of one sort or another. He or she is also inhibited in what they say in Parliament or in Committee by the fact that they are Ministers and bound by collective responsibility. So being a Member of Parliament has a huge effect on one’s conduct, a much greater effect than being a solicitor, accountant or farmer. It also has an effect on one’s ability, in a direct sense, to be seen to be looking after one’s constituents. Most of us manage to look after our constituents pretty well in the circumstances, but you cannot argue that it is irrelevant that someone is a Minister. To that extent, it is quite right to put it in the register and declare it along with any other more conventional financial interests. At the same time, it seems fairly obvious that Gordon Brown is the Prime Minister. Does he really need to state that in the register? Is it not just another complication? The main reason for moving my amendment is that the law should be precise about this matter. Otherwise, there will be controversy and different views about it as time goes on. If the intention is that the House of Commons should continue its present practice, under which ministerial office or being an office holder is not to be regarded as a financial interest from the point of view of the register, then the legislation should make that clear. I should also talk about the position of office holders; that is another past interest of mine, as noble Lords will know. There are not only Ministers but office holders such as Opposition Chief Whip, which position I had the honour to hold for a while, not so long ago. One is paid to do a job of work, a very all-consuming job, which takes a lot of time, energy and attention. I was also a Whip in the Commons but I was a Government Whip and therefore a member of the Government and a Minister, so it was different. The Opposition Whip and the Leader of the Opposition in the Commons come under the same provision, so I have included them in the amendment. I can see the argument: the Bill seems to require the disclosure of all financial interests; for that matter, Amendment 42, in the name of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, certainly requires these interests to be stated. What I think is unacceptable is that the Bill should not pronounce on this matter at all. From my point of view, the present system is satisfactory, and the amendment seeks to ensure that that continues. I beg to move.