Skip to main content

Members' Declarations Of Interest

Volume 419: debated on Monday 6 April 1981

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

2.45 p.m.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask the Leader of the House whether he will take steps to establish a register, as has been done in another place, requiring Members of this House to record their financial interests.

My Lord, this is essentially a matter for your Lordships' House. Up to now the House has been content to rely upon the requirement that, if a noble Lord decides that it is proper for him to take part in a debate on a subject in which he has a direct pecuniary interest, he should declare it. This derives from the long-standing custom of the House that noble Lords always speak on their personal honour.

My Lords, in view of the fact that we are a legislative assembly, sharing that task with the other place, is it not desirable that we should be accountable to the public, of whom we are the servants? Is it not desirable and in favour of open government not only that we should declare our interests when we speak but that the public should be able to judge them when we vote in the Lobbies?

My Lords, as I say, this is essentially a matter for the House. In 1974 the Procedure Committee considered this possibility and set up a sub-committee. The sub-committee suggested—and the Procedure Committee agreed—that any such suggestion should be approved only as a result of the Procedure Committee agreeing and your Lordships' House agreeing, and neither of those actions came about.

My Lords, does my noble friend think that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, would like me to declare my overdraft?

My Lords, it would be a fascinating revelation, but I doubt whether that was the purpose of the noble Lord's Question.

My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that some of us on this side would be embarrassed if the pathetic modesty of our means was declared to the public and to our potential creditors?

My Lords, that peculiarity may not reflect only upon noble Lords opposite.

My Lords, will my noble friend not agree that, if open government is the purpose of this Question, there may be some case for investigating interests, other than financial, which prompt Questions in this House?

My Lords, that also is perfectly true and no doubt would be covered by any such investigation.