1.    Mr Denis MacShane wrote to me on 6 April 1998 alleging that Mr Stephen Dorrell had breached the advocacy rule by attaching his name to a Motion on trade union recognition while retaining a registrable interest in a company which did not recognise trade unions. In a subsequent letter of 23 April, Mr MacShane further alleged that Mr Dorrell had failed to declare the interest in his speech to move the Motion on 6 April; and supplied the evidence on which he relied for his assertion that the company concerned did not recognise trade unions. Mr MacShane's letters are attached at Annex A.

2.    The Motion to which Mr Dorrell was a signatory, and the speech in which he moved it,[1] are at Annex B. The Motion read

"That this House urges the Government to define its policy on trade union recognition; and urges it to require the support of 50 per cent of the total workforce, rather than 50 per cent of those voting in ballots, to determine whether union recognition should be compulsory, given the Government's rejection of the Official Opposition's policy of leaving the law unchanged."

MR DORRELL'S RESPONSE

3.    In letters dated 22 and 28 April (Annex C) Mr Dorrell drew attention to the fact that he had registered his interests, both as a director and as a shareholder, in an industrial clothing manufacturer, Faithful Group Ltd and its subsidiary, Faithful Limited. He confirmed that the company had no formal recognition agreement with any trade union but had a harmonious working relationship with the General Municipal and Boilermakers' Union.

4.    Mr Dorrell did not believe that the Motion concerned represented "a parliamentary proceeding which relates specifically and directly to the affairs and interests" of Faithful. He therefore took the view that it did not fall within the advocacy rule but merely asserted a general principle which the Opposition believed to be desirable. If, however, I took a different view he was content to abide by that judgement.

5.    On the question of declaration Mr Dorrell pointed out that he had been actively interested in the Faithful Group for many years and that, to his knowledge, the question of trade union recognition had never arisen during that period. He therefore thought that the company was unlikely to be substantially affected by the Government's proposals and that declaration was therefore not required. Again, however, he was content to defer to my judgement.

THE RULES

6.    The relevant requirements are set out in the Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members approved by the House on 24 July 1996. Relevant sections include the following:

(i)  Advocacy

"Initiating a parliamentary proceeding: When a Member has received, is receiving or expects to receive a pecuniary benefit from a body (or individual) outside Parliament the Member may not initiate any parliamentary proceeding which relates specifically and directly to the affairs and interests of that body (or individual); any client of such a body (or individual); any group, sector, category or organisation whose affairs and interests are substantially the same as those of the outside body (or individual)."

A note to the paragraph above explains that "initiating a parliamentary proceeding" includes tabling or moving any Motion.

(ii)  Declaration

"In any debate or proceeding .... [a Member] shall disclose any relevant pecuniary interest or benefit of whatever nature, whether direct or indirect, that he may have had, may have or may be expecting to have".

"The basic test of relevance should be the same for declaration as it is for registration of an interest; namely, that a pecuniary interest should be declared if it might reasonably be thought by others to influence the speech, representation or communication in question".

Declaration of a relevant interest is required for written notices, including the addition of names in support of Motions, where "the symbol '[R]' is printed after the Member's name on the Notice Paper or Order Paper".

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS

7.    Both in attaching his name to the Motion and in moving that Motion in a speech of 6 April, Mr Dorrell was clearly "initiating a parliamentary proceeding" under the rule outlined above. Whether or not these actions breached the advocacy rule therefore turns on whether they related specifically and directly to the affairs and interests of the Faithful companies; to any client of those companies; or any group, sector, category or organisation whose affairs and interests are substantially the same as those of the companies concerned.

8.    By attaching his name to the Motion and in his speech, Mr Dorrell made it clear that he was supporting a policy which provided no compulsory recognition of trade unions or, failing that, a policy under which compulsory recognition would only apply if it had the support of 50 per cent of the total workforce.

9.    In my view the support of these policies related specifically and directly, if not to the interests of the Faithful Group itself, at least to other companies which had no recognition agreements with trade unions; and explicitly endorsed the position of the CBI on this issue. This does, I believe, amount to a breach of the advocacy rule.

10.  If the Committee agrees with this conclusion the question of non-declaration does not arise. Mr Dorrell should not have attached his name to the Motion, and should not have opened the debate, while still retaining his interest in the company.

11.  If, however, the Committee came to the conclusion that the advocacy rule had not been breached, I believe that Mr Dorrell's direct and indirect interests were sufficient to trigger the need for declaration, both in the written notice and in his speech. Although he was propounding the official Opposition policy, those interests could, in my view, reasonably have been thought by others to have influenced his actions.

29 April 1998