On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you to give guidance on the subject of the declaration of interests by hon. Members? In last night's television programme "World in Action", a number of Members, whom I have no intention of naming, were said to have commercial interests outside the House which they had not declared. I believe that that programme raised matters which concern the reputation of the House.

We have said—as you have said, Mr. Speaker—that this is an honourable House. It must be said that undoubtedly a number of people who watched that programme last night must be wondering how those with commercial interests, who in many respects are just lobbyists paid for by companies, can raise on the Floor of the House of Commons, at Question Time or on other occasions, matters in which they have a direct financial interest. That would not be allowed in a local authority. Indeed, the traditions—

Order. What is the point of order for me?

I am asking you, Mr. Speaker, whether the standards which undoubtedly exist in local government, and which I believe to be right, should not apply in the House of Commons.

It was said last night that it was not necesary to declare an interest at Question Time. If you come to the conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that the reputation of the House is being abused because Members are exploiting that loophole by not declaring their interests at Question Time, when in fact they have a direct financial or commercial interest, may I ask you to rule that they do so?

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Order. Is it on the same point, because I can help the House by giving clear guidance?

My point of order concerns the same matter, Mr. Speaker, and I think I can be of assistance. In view of the sanctimonious nonsense that is traditionally spoken by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), whom nobody would employ to do anything, may I express the hope that, in taking this matter into account, you will bear in mind that many Opposition Members are nakedly sponsored by trade unions and who spend their entire time using the House in furtherance of their trade union interests?

Order. I shall not allow this to develop into a debate. Let me give clear guidance, because the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) asked for that.

I made it clear yesterday that these are matters in the first instance for the Select Committee on Members' Interests under Standing Order No. 128. That Committee considers any specific complaints made in relation to the registering or declaring of interests. The Committee also considers any proposals made by Members or others as to the form and contents of the Register of Members' Interests.

The Committee is currently examining the whole question of outside lobbyists and their relations with Members. I cannot comment from the Chair on allegations of non-compliance with the rules for registration. Any information that Members or others have relevant to these issues should be sent to the Committee and not debated across the Floor of the House.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On a matter of clarification relating to lobbyists, would you agree that that word would cover any body which is involved in lobbying Members of Parliament? If so, it must embrace trade unions and other bodies which actively lobby all of us. I hope that that will be borne in mind.

rose—

Order. The system of being lobbied in the House is of long standing.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your guidance? You will be aware that in a highly dynamic situation which was developing during the course of the day today, I tried to raise through the usual means the question of the dumping fly ash in the North sea off the north-east. I was advised by your office that one reason why the issue could not be raised was that, because three people had been arrested, the matter was considered to be sub judice.

This is a matter of some puzzlement to me. People are frequently arrested in relation to demonstrations about: matters of public concern and are not necessarily subsequently charged, or there may not be a case to answer. The point on which I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, is whether we are to assume that when anybody is arrested in the course of some matter of public concern, we are prevented from raising it in the House. If so, that seems to be creating a precedent.

I can give the hon. Gentleman guidance on that matter. He sought to raise the matter in an application under Standing Order No. 20 asking for a debate which would take precedence over the business set down for today or tomorrow. My office gave him the guidance that that would not be in order because the men concerned—I think they were all men—had been arrested, and clearly it would not be in order to have a debate on the subject. The hon. Gentleman can put down a question regarding the disposal of ash; that would be a completely different matter.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your guidance? The Register of Members' Interests shows that about 90 per cent. of Labour Members are sponsored by trade unions in their constituencies. The Register of Members' Interests states that many of them are under something called the Hastings agreement, which, as far as I can tell, seems to be that the unions pay for all those goods and services in their constituencies which other Members of Parliament have to pay for themselves out of their taxed income. I am asking you, Mr. Speaker, as a matter of guidance: is it not right that hon. Members who receive vast benefits from various trade unions should declare the exact amount that they are receiving, because they are receiving it in kind?

rose—

Order. I have already made the position absolutely clear to the House. It is a matter for the Select Committee on Members' Interests.

But it is not true.

The hon. Gentleman may take exception to what has been said, but it is not a matter of order for me. If any such abuse is alleged it should be taken to the Select Committee.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I pursue just a little further the matter that my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) raised with you? The House is aware that, if a legal process is in action, you exercise the sub judice rule across all our business, whether it is a debate or an application under Standing Order No. 20. I think I am right in saying that that has never before happened on arrest.

As a matter of law, someone is innocent until proved guilty and certainly is not regarded as apprehended until he is charged. May I ask you to reflect on the matter generally? It affects not only the issue that my hon. Friend raised about dumping in the North sea, but all our business. Could you rule either today or tomorrow whether, between arrest and charge, a matter is not sub judice, as is the traditional understanding as a matter of law?

I have made the matter absolutely clear. It is not a suitable subject for an application under Standing Order No. 20. If we had applications under Standing Order No. 20 every time anyone was arrested, we should never get any business done. The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) made a specific request under Standing Order No. 20 to discuss those arrests. I passed the message to him that that would not be appropriate. If he would like to discuss the matter with me, I should be happy to do so.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I beg your indulgence to explain to the House that the Hastings agreement is an agreement between the trades unions and the local Labour party relating only to a percentage of the money paid for an election? None of us receives any personal remuneration whatsoever. Therefore, it is a total lie for hon. Gentlemen to suggest otherwise.

Withdraw!

Order. I think that the House would be well advised to wait until the Select Committee has carefully considered the matter, which I have already said is before it. Doubtless there will then be a debate in which all these matters will be in order. We should not deal with it this afternoon, on a day when we have very heavy business before us.

rose—

Order. I am on my feet.