M.P.s’ income register ‘a sham’

Press, 26 February 1986, Page 16

M.P.s’ income register ‘a sham’

In light of the Government’s proposal to have a register of the sources of income of all members of Parliament, Peter O’Hara, NZPA staff correspondent in London, reviews the British experience.

Critics say the register which lists the financial interests of British members of Parliament is a sham and has revealed a minimum of useful information in the last 11 years.

The chairman of the Parliamentary select committee which oversees the list, a Conservative member, Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith, says it has been a public service by “concentrating members’ minds on the need to be accountable."

“It exposes a member of Parliament to the risk that if he doesn’t disclose a serious interest and it is revealed, then it will come to the committee’s attention and he will get all the extra undesirable publicity,” Sir Geoffrey said.

; The register proposal was endorsed by Parliament during Harold Wilson’s Labour Government. A free vote was passed in 1974 making an order which established the list.

. It set out to require members of Parliament to say what financial interests they had, letting the public examine whether elected representatives were being influenced in their Parliamentary work by those interests. A long-serving Labour member, Mr George Strauss, said at the outset it was “a stupid bit of nonsense.”

“It is harmless, very amusing in part, and will be enormous fun for the gossip writers,” he said.

Described as one of . the richest men in the Labour Party, he listed his interests as "nil.”

In the decade since, the Labour peer’s words have often been repeated. His “nil” entry is identical to that of many members in today’s list, including the Prime Minister, Mrs Thatcher. The register has been criticised as inconsistent and as focusing more on trivia rather than on declarations of real public interest. British members of Parliament

are required to fill out a form showing their interests and the resulting register is updated continually. The last has nine "registrable interests” on the list:

• Remunerated directorships of companies (remuneration includes taxable expenses, allowances or benefits as well as direct income).

• Remunerated “employments or offices.”

• Remunerated trades, professions or vocations. • Names of clients if a member of Parliament’s paid services relate to membership of the House. '

• Financial sponsorship as a Parliamentary candidate if it is more than 25 per cent of election expenses, or financial sponsorship as a member of Parliament • Overseas visits when they are not totally paid for by the M.P. or from public funds. © Payments, material benefits or advantages from "foreign Governments, organisations or persons.”

® Land and property of a substantial value or from which a substantial income is derived. • Names of companies or Other bodies when an M.P., spouse and infant children own shares greater than 1 per cent of the issued share capital. One of the main points of contention has been the loose wording of some of the "registrable interests.”

Critics have picked on the fact that there is no definition, for instance, of what comprises land of "substantial value.” In the latest list few members list any land or property. One who does, the Minister of Agriculture, Mr Michael Jopling, confines his entry to: “Has an Interest in land and property”.

A common criticism is that the register usually does not reveal the extent of a member’s interest — how much money it is worth. Shareholdings have only to be mentioned, for instance, without

any detail. Few seem to qualify anyhow. The answer has always been .that the register was never intended to show the wealth of a member — just that he or she had an interest and might therefore be susceptible to pressure. The register has proved useful as an indication of overseas trips taken at someone else’s expense and the consultancy work that employs Parliamentarians. .

It shows that 14 Conservative members travelled to South Africa and Namibia last year, with the South African Government or other local administrations paying part of the expense. A former Labour Prime Minister, Mr Jim Callaghan, chose to record just this about overseas trips: “It has been my practice for many years to pay my own travel expenses, but to accept hospitality of a private or governmental nature or from the British Ambassador.”.

The Labour member for Heywood, Mr Jim Callaghan, mentioned he had received a gold watch during a Parliamentarians’ visit to Switzerland.

A New, Zealander who represents the Labour constituency of Dagenham, Mr Bryan Gould, has just one entry, which says he went to Hong Kong in September 1984 as a guest of the Hong Kong Government. A Labour member who was once a New Zealand broadcaster and university lecturer, Dr Austin Mitchell, details one directorship and says he works occasionally in television, radio and journalism.

While the vast majority of members have very scant entries, a Conservative, Mr Geoffrey Rippon, launches into print with 35 directorships, including 30 companies of which he is chairman. Of more concern than directorships lately has been the activity of members who act as lobbyists for interest groups. A report published by two lobbyists, Charles Miller and Roger Hayes, claims at least eight members are running consultancies not listed in the register.

“The Times” newspaper said last year that some members

were more than doubling their

($44,000) salary by working for outside consultancies. The register showed that more than 140 members acted as consultants and the number of clients increased 50 per cent over the previous year. The House decided in December that the select committee would review the question of whether members should have to give more information, particularly about consultancies and public relations work.

It also decided on a review of whether members should disclose how much they are paid. Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith said the committee would consider the suggestion that members should be required to declare an interest when asking a Parliamentary question, and whether they should be barred from voting.

Parliament has meanwhile turned its attention to other people who work at the Commons.

Journalists, researchers and others holding permanent passes will have to register any gainful pursuit, apart from their regular work, which their position at Parliament enables. The select committee is working out how to put Parliament’s decision into practice. “The Times” said the new register had come “after growing concern that commercial lobbyists and outside pressure groups have spread their net beyond members as part of a pervasive intelligence network”. It has also raised the tricky issue of Mr Enoch Powell,, the Northern Ireland member, who has always refused to declare his interests. Mr Powell could conceivably be held in contempt for his refusal to obey Parliament’s order, but the House has not moved against him, even when it had the chance to make it a requirement of new members after his resignation for the Irish by-election. He said the register was unconstitutional and should be legislated for if in fact it was necessary.

“We are degrading ourselves by implying that our honour and traditions are not adequate,” he said.

The leader of the Liberal Party, Mr David Steel, said it was outrageous to introduce a compulsory register for political journalists while members maintained a voluntary register. Sir Geoffrey argues that the members’ register is in fact compulsory. It is just that the House has not wanted to adopt a “sledgehammer” approach against Mr Powell or others who have resisted the register from time to time, he says.

The select committee chairman says he ’’twists a few arms” to bring members into line. He says that the register is working. . “It helps for greater candour. There should be people in the press who know a member’s interests,” he says.