CONDUCT OF MEMBERS

HC Deb 26 July 1977 vol 936 cc332-460

Mr. Speaker

Before I call the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House to move, "That the Report from the Select Committee on Conduct of Members be now considered", perhaps I may explain to the House that our practice in debates concerning conduct of Members is for such a motion to be moved in order to enable those Members whose conduct is in question to address the House first. It is our custom that when each Member has concluded his speech he withdraws from the Chamber.

I remind the House that it is also our custom that these speeches should be heard in silence and without interruption.

Thereafter, I propose that the three following motions agreeing with the Report of the Select Committee in so far as it relates to each of the Members concerned should be debated, together with the amendments that I have selected. These are listed on the Order Paper.

The first motion is, That this House agrees with the Report of the Committee in so far as it relates to Mr. John H. Cordle.

The amendment that I have selected for debate is Amendment (a), leave out 'agrees with' and insert 'takes note of'.

The second motion is, That this House agrees with the Report of the Committee in so far as it relates to Mr. Reginald Maudling. The following amendments have been selected for debate: Amendment (c), leave out 'agrees with' and insert takes note of'. Amendment (g), at end add 'and that Mr. Maudling he expelled this House.'. Amendment (h), at end add 'and since his conduct was inconsistent with the standards the House is entitled to expect from its Members suspends him from membership of this House for six months and suspends his salary as a Member for that period; these suspensions to be Standing Orders of the House'. The third motion is, That this House agrees with the Report of the Committee in so far as it relates to Mr. Albert Roberts.

I have selected the following amendments for debate:

Amendment (i), leave out 'agrees with' and insert 'takes note of'.

Amendment (l), at end add 'and that Mr. Roberts be expelled this House.'. Amendment (m), at end add 'and since his conduct was inconsistent with the standards the House is entitled to expect from its Members suspends him from membership of this House for six months and suspends his salary as a Member for that period; these suspensions to be Standing Orders of the House'. Lists of the amendments selected are being placed in the "No" Lobby for the convenience of hon. Members. At the conclusion of the debate I shall put each motion separately, first calling the amendments that I have selected to each motion if the proposers wish to move them.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Report from the Select Committee on Conduct of Members be now considered.—[Mr. Foot.].

4.42 p.m.

Mr. Reginald Maudling (Chipping Barnet)

I welcome this opportunity to make this statement today. I have been looking forward to this opportunity for a very long time. t is now just over five years since I resigned as Home Secretary and since the investigation began into the affairs of Mr. Poulson. They have been long years for me, and throughout that time I have had to live with suspicion, innuendo and gossip which it has been impossible to dispel. One cannot rebut charges that are never formulated. One cannot dispose of evidence that is never produced.

The House should know today what happened in the course of that long investigation, probably the most thorough ever undertaken in this country. On one occasion in July 1975, three years after the investigation began, the police officers concerned came to see me in the specific context of an allegation that Mr. Poulson used bribery to obtain a hospital contract in Malta. These accusations had not been mentioned until two years after I resigned, and the simple fact, which I told them, and which the Select Committee accepts, is that if there was such a bribe, I knew nothing about it.

Apart from that one conversation, at no time throughout the whole five years have the police sought any information whatsoever from me about the affairs of Mr. Poulson. The Department of Trade, which was investigating what the Select Committee describes as irregularities in the conduct of the companies of which I was chairman or a director, never approached me for any information at any time from the very start to the very end of its investigations. This, I suggest, is a certain measure of the degree to which I was involved in the affairs of Mr. Poulson.

The Select Committee in its Report makes many things clear, and I am deeply grateful to it for doing so. It makes it clear that there was never any suggestion whatsoever of corrupt conduct on my part. It makes it clear, as I have said, that I had no knowledge of any possible bribe. It points out that before accepting Mr. Poulson's invitation I made very extensive inquiries about him. The Select Committee says categorically that there was nothing improper in having a business connection with him or accepting remuneration from him. It acknowledges that if I failed to detect any irregularities on his part it was through no negligence of mine whatsoever.

The Select Committee points out that I disclosed my relationship with Mr. Poulson to all those with whom I dealt outside Parliament, and in particular that it was my invariable rule, when having any dealings with any foreign Government, to inform the local British representative about them in detail, because I believe that that is what Members of Parliament should do. Finally, the Select Committee says that there was no reason to think that I was influenced by any improper motives in the interventions that I made in Parliament in 1967–10 years ago.

As I have said, I am grateful to the Select Committee for making all these things clear, finally and decisively. My only regret is that in the accounts of the Select Committee's Report that have appeared so extensively in the Press there has been no reference to those matters in which the Select Committee vindicated what I did, but only to the things on which it criticised me, and it is to these that I now intend to turn.

The Select Committee's first criticism is that I should have disclosed an interest when intervening in the House on matters relating to Malta in 1967. The reason why I did not do so is set out in my letter to Lord Maybray-King, which appears in Appendix 70, and with the permission of the House I should like to quote it. I wrote: The simple question is whether I had a direct pecuniary interest in the outcome of the debate, which I should have declared. I do not see how this could in fact have been so, because Mr. Poulson's appointment had already been made, and because the Government made it quite clear at the beginning of the debate, that the existing aid programme from which the Gozo Hospital was to be financed, would not in any circumstances be affected. If the hospital had been designed for use by British forces, or if the withdrawal of British forces would have meant the abandonment of the project, then clearly 1 would have had a direct pecuniary interest, but as neither of these conditions pertained, I do not see how this could have been so. I told Lord Maybray-King that I should warmly welcome any views that he cared to express, and I went on to say: I should perhaps add that there is no question of my deliberately concealing anything, as I had already announced my interest in the hospital at a press conference in Malta, and specifically brought it to the attention of the British High Commissioner there. I still believe that to be a correct statement of the position under the conventions of this House in 1967, and Lord Maybray-King, who was then Speaker, agreed with me, though I must accept, of course, that the Select Committee does not.

I shall not endeavour to argue the issue. There are several points in its Report on which I think the Select Committee has been misinformed, but I am grateful once again to the Committee for making it clear, first, that I was following what I genuinely believed to be the rules of the House at the time and, secondly, that there was no question of concealing anything: if someone wants to conceal something, he does not announce it to the Press and to the British Government. Thirdly, I wish to note that the Committee does not suggest that in this matter my conduct was in any way inconsistent with the standards that the House is entitled to expect from its Members.

I come to the second point—the accusations made by the Select Committee in paragraph 33 and only about my letter of resignation when I resigned as Home Secretary. I read paragraph 33 with astonishment. Earlier, in paragraph 4, the Committee had said that before reaching its conclusions it had put to the Members concerned the matters that arose from the evidence they had examined and that no new evidence or accusation emerged that was not fully described and put to the Members concerned during their evidence". The fact is that while the Hansard extract from the Prime Minister's statement was in the bundle of documents before the Committee, it was not mentioned in the list of questions sent to me by the Committee which it asked me to answer. At no time throughout the two hours that I spent with the Committee did any member of it make any mention whatsoever of the statement to me.

The first intimation that I received that the Committee was concerned about my letter of resignation, let alone critical of it, was when I received a copy of its final Report about an hour before it was released to the Press. So I find it a little bewildering that a Select Committee reporting to this House can make a statement which, frankly, is not accurate. The Select Committee did not put to me the matter of my resignation letter. It did not describe to me its accusation. Not one word was said about it at any time by anyone while I was before the Committee.

The effect, of course, is simply this: although everyone has heard the charge that the Committee brings against me and although a number of people have not hesitated to condemn me, no one has yet listened to a single word of my side of the case. That is what I want to put now.

I would ask the House not to endorse this paragraph—this is what I concentrate on—for the simple reason that it just is not true. It is based on a complete misapprehension of the facts, which I shall now explain to the House and which I could have explained so easily to the Committee if only it had asked me to do so.

In paragraph 33 the Committee quotes as the fundamental basis of its accusation against me what purports to be a passage from my letter of resignation to the Prime Minister, which he read at my request to the House. It goes on to say: It was in these terms, therefore, that Mr. Maudling chose to describe his relationship with Mr. Poulson to the House. But that is not the case. In fact, it is nothing of the kind. Those are not the words that I used. They are just some of the words that I used, which is a very different matter. Nor was I seeking to describe, or purporting to describe, to the House my relationship with Mr. Poulson. I was describing the reasons for my resignation, which is a very different matter. To resign as Home Secretary—I think I can say I was effectively Deputy Leader of the Government at the time—is no small thing to have to do.

I am always apprehensive of partial quotations, of the leaving out of words from sentences and putting dots in their place. I cannot understand why the Committee in its report did not quote my letter in full but consigned it to Appendix 65, where the House will find it. What I said in fact to the Prime Minister was: We discussed the assertions made by Mr. Poulson during his bankruptcy hearing. Among them there was one referring to myself, to the effect that before I accepted his invitation to become Chairman of an export Company, for which post I took no remuneration, he had made a covenant in favour of a charitable appeal which had my support. I do not regard this as matter either for criticism or for investigation. However, there are matters not relating to me that do require investigation, and I entirely agree that this should be carried out in the normal way on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The difficulty arises that the task must fall upon the Metropolitan Police, and in my particular office as Home Secretary I am Police Authority for the Metropolis. We agreed that it would not be appropriate for me to continue to hold this office while the investigations are being pursued, in view of the fact that my name has been mentioned at the Hearing. I was referring specifically to only one of Mr. Poulson's assertions, as my words show. I was doing that for a very good reason, which I will explain in a moment. I was resigning as Home Secretary solely because of my connection with the Metropolitan Police. Had I been holding any other Office of State, I would not have resigned. The Prime Minister was good enough to recognise this by offering me an alternative post in his Government, which, as the House is aware, I declined for reasons of a personal character wholly unconnected with Mr. Poulson.

The general nature of my business relations with Mr. Poulson was not before the House in any way. It was before the courts. The Committee has described my business relations with Mr. Poulson. It has made it absolutely clear that there was nothing whatever about them that it had to criticise. I can find nothing in the Committee's description of my relationship that did not emerge in full in public during the course of those court hearings five years ago.

I was calling attention in my resignation letter to one particular aspect of my relationship with Mr. Poulson, namely, his covenant in favour of the Adeline Genée Theatre. I single out this particular aspect for one very good parliamentary reason, namely, that it had already been singled out and put before the House in a formal motion in the name of the Liberal Party under the heading: Allegations of Financial Corruption in Public Life calling for investigation". The motion of the Liberal Party said— That this House, gravely concerned with the allegations made by Mr. Poulson in the bankruptcy court proceedings that he had paid substantial sums of money to two Back Bench Members of Parliament and another substantial payment to a body at the request of a Privy Councillor, calls upon the Government to order an immediate inquiry. As I told the then Leader of the Liberal Party, who was and still is a very good friend of mine, I objected to the wording of that motion because it did not say that the body concerned was a charitable body. It gave the clear impression that the money had been paid to me for my own benefit. This was under the heading "Financial Corruption". I made clear in my letter that this was not the case, that the money had gone, not to me, but to a charity and that, in my view, this was a matter neither for investigation nor for criticism. This point of view the Select Committee now in its Report has wholly endorsed.

These are the facts of the matter. They do not appear at all in the Report from the Select Committee. No doubt the Committee was not aware of them. There is no reason why the Committee should have been aware of these facts or why it should have remembered them. If it had asked me about them, I could have told the Committee at the time. That, for the first time, is my side of the case.

I understand that, by convention, I ought now to withdraw while the House discusses these issues. This will mean once again that there will be an opportunity for people to criticise me or even to contradict me while I have no opportunity to hear what they say, still less to reply to what they say. But on this occasion I am confident of the fairness of the House as a whole. I am confident that the House will accept that what I have said is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and that now for the first time the House has before it the facts upon which to reach a judgment.

The right hon. Member then withdrew.

4.58 p.m.

Mr. Albert Roberts (Normanton)

I too, welcome this opportunity to make a statement, just as I welcomed the setting up of a Select Committee. Much has been said concerning the Poulson corruption and bribery. I appreciate that the Select Committee had a very difficult job. I would have preferred it to call us in after preparing its Report.

In my opinion there are one or two small inaccuracies in the Report from the Committee, but I have had very little involvement. I shall deal with one or two points that I think that the House should listen to.

In 1964, when I started to work for John Poulson, he was a highly respected business man. There was no one more highly respected in the North of England. He was a tax commissioner and he was made a freeman of Pontefract in 1966, when my employment with John Poulson was fading out.

I have served 15 years as a councillor on a local authority and have been for many years on hospital boards. But I have had no improper contact whatever with councillors, with local authorities, or with boards of nationalised industries, or with Ministers, or with Parliament. Indeed, I was the governor of a teaching hospital of which the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Sir D. Kaberry) was chairman. I do not know whether he wants to make any comment on my stewardship during the time I was a member of the board.

There is one thing about which I am rather surprised in this report. I gave my evidence on oath, as did John Poulson. I refer to the letter sent to Malta. We are dealing with a period 13 years ago, in the mists of time. On that letter which I sent to Malta the Committee says that it prefers to accept the evidence of Mrs. Clayton, to the effect that Poulson dictated that letter. Let me put the facts.

A typewriter was brought to my home because my typewriter was broken. If Poulson was to dictate the letter, why bring a typewriter? I made my inquiries during the weekend and the position is as follows. I said that I would send a letter because about 40 people employed by Poulson lived in my constituency. I said that, if the need arose, I was quite willing to make some points to the Maltese Government, bearing in mind that they were a foreign Government. I never knew that British taxpayers' money would be involved. The letter is my phraseology, and this is what happened.

I rang back to Poulson's office to find out what design work he had done abroad. The people there said "We will give you that". I said "You had better speak to Mrs. Clayton and she can take it down in shorthand and it can be appended to the letter". The Select Committee says that it prefers Mrs. Clayton's word and not mine on oath, or Poulson's word on oath. That is something I wanted to bring out.

The second matter concerns my recommending Poulson for membership of the Yorkshire and Humberside Regional Economic Planning Council to the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs. The Committee does not produce my letter. It produces a letter of acknowledgement from the Secretary of State, then George Brown. Where is my letter? Who can prove, if my letter is not there, that I did not declare an interest? As far as I can recall, I can honestly say that I do not remember declaring an interest. But I was recommending John Poulson purely because at that time there was no one more highly respected than he was in the North of England. There was nothing wrong with that. I did not go and see the Minister. I did not try to inveigle him in any way and Mr. Poulson was not put on the council. That is all there is in the case against me.

I refer to the Committee's Report once more. In paragraph 37 it says: Mr. Roberts did not engage in any Parliamentary activity in furtherance of Mr. Poulson's interests, so no question of failure to declare an interest in the House arises in his case. Just as when a judge is summing up he sways from one side to the other and then there is the sting in the tail, so at the end of its Report the Committee says: In considering Mr. Roberts's case, it is appropriate to take account of the fact that some of Mr. Roberts's constituents (about 40…) were employed by Mr. Poulson, and that some of the work he undertook for Mr. Poulson was directly in their interests. It has long been recognised that service of this kind to constituents is a substantial part of a Member of Parliament's work, and is something which he has a duty, as well as a right, to provide. This is a factor peculiar to Mr. Roberts's case to which Your Committee considers attention should, in fairness, be drawn. Those are the two main points concerning me.

What I have been unable to understand from the start is the fact that no point was made that I have had no contact with John Poulson and no contact, except for a brief word with the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling). I never knew of the right hon. Gentleman's activities. Yet we have been lumped together by the media, which have been seeking to try us for bribery and corruption for over five years. The House ought to realise that.

I know that there has been some reference to punishment. The media have already ruined my wife's health. I feel that on this occasion I have been unjustly treated. Nevertheless, that is my point of view. I have a right to a point of view on this. I live in the constituency I represent. I am local born, home-spun. I have never been able to avoid the local people. I have had to live with them and they have given me tremendous support during the past few days, sending me messages saying "We are with you, Albert".

I have told my story many times. I have always been prepared to come out into the open. I have been on television. From the first moment that this matter arose from the Poulson bankruptcy I have never refused the opportunity to tell my story, because I knew perfectly well that I had no connection with anything in this country.

I come now to the most important point, that concerning standards. The report says of me: His failure so to inform them in their view constituted conduct inconsistent with the standards which the House is entitled to expect from its Members. What standards do I take? One can read the biography of Beaverbrook by Taylor. Do I take my standards from there? From where do I take my standards? I have had no book on the do's and don'ts of Parliament. I have been here now for 26 years. I have been abroad with Members from both sides of the House. I have friends on both sides. They know what type of man I am. I am sure that this place, when all is said and done, is as much like an X-ray machine as anything I know.

I have tried to conform as far as I could. I want some ruling on what are the standards. As a member of a local authority for 15 years, I never contravened any standards. I know that at meetings we all declare our interests, but I was never in that position.

I have been completely exonerated by the Select Committee. Nevertheless, we have all been lumped together and I think that this is very unfair. There it is. I feel that I am completely innocent, my family does, my friends do and many of my constituents do. If there are some ways in which I have transgressed in the shallow waters, I offer my apologies to the House, to my hon. Friends and to hon. Gentlemen.

The hon. Member then withdrew.

Question put and agreed to.

Report considered accordingly.

Mr. Speaker

Today's debate is a rare occasion and one of particular concern to the whole House, including Back Benchers. It is not a party occasion. It is a House of Commons occasion. I have received a large number of requests to take part in the debate, including eight from Privy Councillors.

On this occasion above all others I must give a reasonable opportunity for Back Benchers who are not Privy Councillors to speak. The most senior Members of the House will be called, but the 1958–59 Select Committee on Procedure, composed as it was of extremely distinguished Members of the House, recommended that: As regards debate, the Chair should give due weight to the experience and standing of Privy Councillors, but should not be bound to call them in preference to other Members. Although this Report has never been formally agreed to by the House, I intend to follow that recommendation today. I fear that it may mean that some Privy Councillors may not be called. My effort will be to ensure that there is a fair balance of opinion expressed across the Floor of the House.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop (Tiverton)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have heard, as the whole House has, the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) say how sad he is that he is not allowed to be present in the House to hear those who wish to make accusations against him, if any there still be, and that if he could catch your eye, he should have the right to reply. You have correctly described what has been the practice of the House in the past, but neither the right hon. Gentleman nor the hon. Gentleman has been ordered by you or by the House to withdraw.

I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that there are many hon. Members who believe that our two colleagues should be entitled to be present to hear what is said against them and, if they wish to do so, should take their chances of catching your eye at the culmination of these proceedings. I believe that that is a proposition that would appeal to the sense of fairness of this House, and it is not barred by any Standing Order.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Gentleman has correctly indicated that our custom through the years has been that right hon. or hon. Members whose conduct is under question withdraw from the Chamber. I hope that the House will allow me to consider what has been said. I shall not be leaving the Chair. I intend to stay almost throughout the whole of the debate. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to consider his point of order, I shall make a statement later. I shall intervene briefly in the debate to do so.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith (Hertfordshire, East)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In your consideration you will find that on page 171 of the current edition of "Erskine May" there is a discretion for you to allow that proposition, more particularly if there is any possibility of further allegations being made in the course of the debate.

Mr. Speaker

I would say to the House that, above all on occasions like this, I am a servant of the House, as I am conscious that I always am. If I discover that it is the general feeling of the House that common fair play—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It is quite clear to me that the House feels that both the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman should be free, if they wish, to sit in the debate. So be it.

5.12 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Report of the Committee insofar as it relates to Mr. John H. Cordle. I would first comment on the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) with regard to the ruling that you, Mr. Speaker, have given. It certainly seems to me that it is the desire of the House that both the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend should be present in the House to hear what is said. I have no doubt that the original arrangements of the House grew up for good reasons, but I would have thought that the understanding of the House today would be best served if the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend were able to attend and hear the rest of our proceedings. I would not wish to make any objection if that is what is proposed.

I would also say, perhaps to underline—if it is necessary in any sense whatever—what you said at the beginning of your remarks, Mr. Speaker, that this is preeminently a House of Commons matter. It is not a question on which the Government state a view on which Ministers as Ministers state a view. I have tabled motions to agree with the Report of the Select Committee so far as it relates to the various Members concerned. Those motions are made in my own name according to the previous custom of the House. I believe that the motions are the best way for us to deal with the matter. The motions are made by me, but the House is perfectly free to make up its mind on the matter.

When the debate which set up the Select Committee took place a few months ago, many anxieties were expressed about how the Committee would do its work and whether it would be able to carry out its work properly. Whatever view may be taken about the outcome of the inquiry, I believe that most hon. Members—I do not say all—will come to the conclusion that the Select Committee was conducted in a sensible, intelligent and fair manner. It took account of many of the difficulties that were posed in the debate when the Select Committee was set up and also took account of many of the difficulties that have arisen in previous such inquiries.

Some of us were Members of the House at the time of the report of the Lynskey Tribunal in 1949 and some of us believe that the operation of the Lynskey Tribunal in 1949 did the gravest damage to innocent people who were involved in it. For many years, therefore, some of us have tried to ensure that, whatever kind of tribunal or body was set up to deal with these matters, these kinds of debate, if possible, would be avoided. Of course, it is not possible to avoid them altogether.

As has been indicated by the speeches from the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend, both think that they have been unfairly used by the Select Committee. But before we come to discuss that aspect of the matter, I ask the House to contrast what has been done by this Select Committee with what happened in those previous tribunals and investigations. I believe that the case made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at the time when the Select Committee was established has been vindicated by the result. I believe that the choice which the House of Commons made at that time—that the proceedings should take place in private but that the publication of the minutes be made afterwards—has been proved to be the right procedure. I believe that it has been fairer to the individuals concerned, including the individuals involved in the inquiry, and that it may be fairer to many other individuals as well.

As a result of that method of procedure we have received a Report from the Select Committee on which sat many respected hon. Members from all the different parties. That is a further proof that this is not a party question in any sense whatever. I also believe that the Report repudiates the suggestions that in some way or other the House of Commons was going to set up a form of investigation that would be a whitewash or a cover-up. Nothing of the sort has occurred. The investigation has taken place and it was conducted with care, scruple, diligence and speed. All those factors should be taken into account. It should also be taken into account that those who sat on the Committee represented all the different shades of opinion in this House.

Of course, it is not required in any sense whatever that the House of Commons has to accept a report from a Select Committee. The House of Commons is the final arbiter in all such matters and the House of Commons can determine, if it wishes, to alter or change the arrangements or the decisions or advice given by a Select Committee. But I think that the House should approach with some care the idea of rejecting altogether the advice of a Committee on which all parties have been represented and which has examined the evidence in detail.

I believe that all hon. Members on all sides of the House should wait to consider what is said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart), who will speak soon after I resume my seat and who will put the general case which the Committee has to put to the House. But the House itself can decide what it wishes to do as a result of the recommendations.

My plea is that the right course for the House is to accept the Report. For reasons that I shall come to in a moment, I do not believe that we should take it further. I would therefore briefly comment on the other various suggestions and proposals to the House.

I say this partly in the light of what the right hon. Gentleman said, although it is no part of my business and is quite improper for me to engage in an argument with him on these matters. Obviously, one question which dominates the mind of the House of Commons in reaching a fair decision on this matter—and if we are to do honour to the House we must be fair, as we cannot vindicate the honour of the House by inflicting injustice on an individual—must be the question that the right hon. Member and my hon. Friend have posed, and which was also put to me a few days ago by Mr. John Cordle. That is the question of whether each of those Members criticised by the Committee should have been recalled by the Committee to make a further representation before the Report was published.

I confess that it seems to me that this is a perfectly strong representation and one which should have been carefully considered, particularly as in the debates when the Select Committee was set up the Attorney-General made a suggestion along those lines. All these factors must be taken into account, and no doubt my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham will comment on these aspects, particularly as this is one of the questions about which the House will wish to hear.

Personally, I still think that it would have been advisable for the Select Committee to adopt the course recommended by the Attorney-General. However, having read the Report right through, I must add that it is very probable that the Select Committee would have reached the same conclusion. That is quite conceivable, and anyone who reads the full Report will probably come to that conclusion. However, we shall hear what my right hon. Friend has to say on this subject.

The proposal has been made that we should take note of the advice given by the Select Committee in each of these cases, but that we should not proceed to the motion in my name that we agree with the proposals. If the House were to do that, particularly in view of the unanimous recommendation of the Committee, the House would be passing a very different judgment from that of the Select Committee itself upon what it was called upon to judge and determine. I am very doubtful whether this would be the right course. Therefore what I am proposing is, I believe, wiser.

Some of my hon. Friends have proposed that we should proceed further than that—that we should pass motions either for the expulsion of the right hon. Member and the hon. Member concerned, or that we should proceed to suspension. That proposal has been made by the Father of the House, and therefore must be fully respected because of his knowledge of these matters. However, I must give my view as strongly as I can. I believe that it would be quite wrong for the House to proceed in such a direction—either of proposing expulsion or of proposing any suspension. I do not draw too sharp a distinction between the two, because I think that either proposal would be mistaken.

I say that for two main reasons. The House of Commons must be extremely careful about any proposal for collectively deciding the nature and composition of the House. After all, it could be that expulsion or suspension of an hon. Member could determine the outcome of votes on major matters. Of course, it is outlandish to think of that occurring in this House of Commons where we have such overwhelming majorities, but in another House of Commons it could well be that motions for expulsion or suspension could be decisive in decreeing the fate of a Government or the fate of the country on major matters. I do not believe that it would be right to interpolate into such questions this kind of issue, which would only make it more difficult for the House to judge these matters at all.

Every time a Committee was asked to judge such a matter in the future it could be said that if the House acted on that precedent and suspended an hon. Member in such circumstances, that would influence the way in which the Committee went about its business. Every Select Committee would be transformed in these circumstances into a much more highly charged political affair than in this instance and many others in the past.

On other more general grounds I believe that the House must be extremely careful that it does not tamper with the relationship between a Member and his constituents. It is not the business of the House of Commons as a whole to lay down such conditions. This is a matter between the individual Member and his constituents.

Anyone who looks at history will find that usually—not always, perhaps—whenever the House of Commons has tried to intervene in such a way and say collectively that it will determine the relationship between an individual Member and his constituents, it has tended to make a fool of itself. I do not think that we want to do that here. We should be very careful to see that we do not move in that direction.

I believe that the House of Commons can act with wisdom and intelligence and also with compassion, if that is the proper word in such cases. Anyone who tells me that Members of Parliament who happen to be caught up in such matters should have their penalty decided by the House of Commons and that people outside will not understand if such a penalty is not imposed is, I believe, mistaken.

I believe that the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend have suffered sufficiently. I do not believe that in addition they should have a penalty imposed by the House of Commons. It is penalty enough for the House of Commons to pass the motion that I have proposed agreeing with the findings of the Select Committee.

I believe that vie can act wisely and intelligently without any sort of vindictiveness in this matter. I believe that we have done this on many such previous occasions. But the House of Commons has occasionally in the past operated a liberal form of lynch law. It can act as a mob, and of all mobs the most objectionable is a sanctimonious mob.

I hope that the House of Commons will bear all these considerations in mind and that hon. Members will listen very carefully to my right lion. Friend the Member for Fulham when he speaks on behalf of the Select Committee on these detailed matters. I believe that the House of Commons can combine to act firmly but with forbearance and that the best way to do this is to accept the unanimous Report of the Select Committee, but to carry the matter no further than that.

5.29 p.m.

Mr. Michael Stewart (Fulham)

I trust that it will be of help to the House if I describe how the Committee went about its task.

We had to begin with the study of a great mass of documents, and we invited, by advertisement, information from any possible quarter. We did this because we felt that we had to perform the task of being able to say that, apart from any right hon. and hon. Members whom we mentioned, we were confident that no other hon. Member had been discreditably connected with the affairs of Mr. Poulson. I trust that I am right in saying that, in the various comments made in the Press and elsewhere about our Report, the accusation was not made that we had in any way covered up or failed to pursue the proper avenues of information or neglected any evidence that should have come before us. We searched diligently through a great mass of documents. In addition, we took oral evidence from Mr. Poulson and from Mr. Dan Smith.

As a result, we were able to decide which hon. Members of this House we ought to examine and what should be the issues in that examination. In all the documents we went through there was much that proved to be totally irrelevant to the inquiry, and in the oral examinations of Mr. Poulson and Mr. Smith and of hon. Members of this House there was occasionally a little that was irrelevant to the inquiry.

We had to bear in mind the point made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that one did not want our work to have the evil result of spattering a smear on the reputations of innocent people. If there were any risk of doing that, and if there were material that might have that effect, and if it could be firmly decided to be irrelevant, we; felt that it should be excluded. In that event in terms of oral evidence there was little on those grounds to exclude.

On this point I must make a necessary digression. It has since been brought to my attention that there were certain former Members of this House who are mentioned in the Report as having been approached by Mr. Cordle on behalf of Mr. Poulson. For that reason inevitably they were mentioned in the Report. They have since been distressed by reports appearing in the local Press of a kind which might lead the not-too-careful reader to suppose that their action was in some way discreditable. They are Mr. Stratton Mills, Mr. Rafton Pounder, Captain William Orr, and the same was also true of the late Sir Knox Cunningham. I also learned that my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Ward) had a similar experience following the mention of his name in the evidence of Mr. Dan Smith. Any careful reader of the Report will see that there was nothing whatever discreditable in their connection with the matter and that the Committee did not make, and indeed could not have made, any possible criticisms. But in view of what has happened, and for the avoidance of doubt, I repeat that there was nothing whatever discreditable in the fact that their names had to be mentioned in the evidence. The Committee did not make any criticism of them or cast any aspersion on them of any kind. It is right to take this opportunity to make that clear.

I return from the digression to the description of how we got on with our work.

Having discovered from the documents and examination of Mr. Poulson and Mr. Smith which hon. Members we needed to examine and on what issues, we provided each of those hon. Members with a file of documents. the material of which would be in issue in our discussions with him and an account of the line of questioning. The House will find in paragraph 15 of our Report a generalised list of the issues that were raised. The list provided to each Member was expanded to take in some of the circumstances of his own connection with the matter. We provided hon. Members with the documents that would be in issue, and we were careful to fix the dates of our meetings with hon. Members so that they would have adequate time to study the documents and the list of questions before they met us. In one case opportunity was taken to furnish a series of written replies in advance, although they were gone over orally with the Committee so that they could he included in the evidence.

So far it must be said that we treated hon. Members of this House with fairness and consideration. It was not a pleasant task for any of us to be invited in this manner to hold inquisitions of any kind into the conduct of fellow Members of the House, but we knew that there was a strong feeling in the House that this job had to be done. We were given that task, and we did it.

At this point I must comment on the statement made by the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling). Let me say at once that I do no intend in this speech, because it would be improper for me to do so, to argue with him across the Floor on points of substance. For example, he took the view that he was under no obligation to make a declaration of interest in the Malta debate. The Committee took the contrary view. I shall not go into detail on that matter in his speech because the House has before it in our Report the reasons why we reached our conclusions and it is further expanded in the evidence and appendices. Therefore, on such a question we leave to the judgment of the House whether our conclusion was right.

However, I must comment on the fact that the right hon. Gentleman referred to the method by which the Committee questioned him and asked whether it was fair. It was mainly in connection with the resignation letter. That letter was included in the folder of documents that was provided in advance to the right hon. Gentleman. At the beginning of that folder was a list of all the documents and the words "resignation letter" clearly indicated that that document was there.

The right hon. Gentleman's complaint boils down to the fact that nobody specifically said to him at any time "But how does your financial relationship with one of the Poulson companies square with what was said in the resignation letter?" I cannot believe that any accusation about the unfairness of the Committee can rest on that. A great deal was self-evident. That the letter was written was a fact, and that part of it was read out, at the right hon. Gentleman's request, by the then Prime Minister also was a fact. These facts in the nature of the case were known both to the right hon. Gentleman and to the Committee.

What was the relevance of that letter to our inquiry? We were not concerned with the question of the Metropolitan Police, or with the question why the right hon. Gentleman had to resign as Home Secretary. The sole relevance of our inquiry clearly must be "Was the statement 'I received no remuneration' as applied to a particular company, as strictly in accord with the facts as it should have been?" Any hon. Member who examines the evidence of the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnett will notice with what care and thoroughness he was questioned on this very point, namely, whether he could be considered to have received remuneration in respect of that company. Again I shall not go over that matter now because it is in the Report and Members can judge the matter. What I maintain, however, is that the pertinacity with which hon. Members in the Committee pursued the point left it in no doubt that one of the questions of issue between the Committee and the right hon. Gentleman related to whether he received such remuneration and whether the phrase "I received no remuneration" could be regarded as a statement that was in accord with the facts, and whether it came up to the standards that the House expects of its Members.

Mr. Maudling

I have known the right hon. Gentleman for many years and deeply respect him. He says that my letter of resignation was before the Committee. That is perfectly true. Will he explain why, in that case, throughout the two hours of discussions not one single word was said about it?

Mr. Stewart

I am trying to explain that every word that was said in the questioning on whether the right hon. Gentleman could properly be described as receiving remuneration was concerned with that letter. It was that letter which contained the phrase "I received no remuneration". With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I do not think that it would be right for him and me to pursue a colloquy across the Floor of the House.

In any case, at the end of the day the position was that the right hon. Gentleman evidently sincerely believed that that statement "for which I received no remuneration" was an entirely frank one. The Committee reached the contrary view. Once again, I do not propose to deploy arguments on why we have put that in our conclusions. The evidence is in the Minutes of Evidence and the Appendices. What I must maintain, however, is that we were entitled, in view of the very thorough questioning of the right hon. Gentleman, to reach a conclusion, and, having reached it, to record it.

Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South-West)

Surely, what the right hon. Gentleman is saying would be entirely acceptable had he asked my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) back to the Committee to see the Report before it was published.

Mr. Stewart

I shall make two points in reply to the hon. Gentleman. I am coming very soon to the question whether we should have invited back to the Committee the right hon. and hon. Members concerned. Secondly, each right hon. or hon. Gentleman was asked at the end of his examination whether there was anything that he wished to say to the Committee. We wanted to make quite sure that those being examined by us would not feel that our frame of questions was too narrow and might produce the truth but not the whole truth, and might, therefore, have been misleading. That opportunity was open to each of the right hon. or hon. Members concerned.

Mr. Norman Lamont (Kingston upon Thames)

rose—

Mr. Stewart

With respect, I do not think that I ought to give way too often. It will be open to hon. Members who do not agree with me to controvert me later if they catch the eye of the Chair.

There was the question whether, having reached conclusions, we should have asked the right hon. and hon. Members in question to come to meet the Committee again and say to them "We are inclined to reach such and such a conclusion. What do you say?".

We had to give weight to the fact that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General had suggested such a procedure, but when we came to examine the matter we decided that the analogy drawn by the Attorney-General between our Committee and a Department of Trade inquiry would not really stand up. A Department of Trade inquiry, having reached its conclusions, invites the persons complained of to see the inquiry again before the report of the inquiry is published. However, the report of such inquiries is a final judgment. There is no analogy with the process through which we are going now in submitting the Report to the House, with the opportunity for aggrieved persons to make their complaint here. It is because the Department of Trade inquiry produces a final report that the persons complained of should make such a claim before the report was published, but in our case we were going to publish a Report which would not be final and would be subject to the judgment of the House, with the opportunity for those persons to complain there.

In the event, things did not turn out in the Select Committee as my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General had feared. He had feared that there would be a situation in which hon. Members did not know what exactly was being discussed. I think that if hon. Members will read the examination of the right hon. and hon. Members concerned they will see that it was very clear indeed, not only the substance of the point to which the questions were tending but also the points on which the conduct of those hon. Members might be open to criticism.

The third point was that we felt that we must have some respect to precedents. There have been instances in which the Committee of Privileges, having concluded that an hon. Member was guilty of contempt, has invited that hon. Member to see it before publishing the report. The general use of that proceduce has been in cases in which contempt is not aggravated, and in which it is expected that the person complained of will make an apology there and then and so enable the Committee to make a complete report to the House saying "We have found that a contempt has been committed but we consider that the apology sufficiently disposes of the matter".

However, in more serious cases this approach has not been followed. It was not followed in the cases of Mr. Garry Allighan and the then Member for Gravesend, Mr. Evelyn Walkden, and it was not followed by the Select Committee which dealt with Mr. Boothby, as he then was. It was not followed in the case of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). There the Committee did exactly what we did. I did not find, in discussions on those reports, that there was any suggestion that those hon. Members had been treated unfairly in that respect, or that anything had happened which could have invalidated the work of the Committee.

There were one or two points of principle that we had to consider. What is "conduct inconsistent with the standards that the House expects"? We felt that it should not be our job to try to write a new manual of conduct which is consistent and conduct which is not. We must apply ourselves to the particular conduct in these cases. We have set out that there are differences between what the House considers necessary now in the way of declarations and what it considered was necessary at that time in the case of declarations.

Then there was the problem raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Norman-ton (Mr. Roberts). It seemed a common sense question. If an hon. Member approaches a Minister and asks that Minister to do something for a third party—for example, to give him a job, or grant him a contract—and in the course of the conversation the hon. Member does not disclose that he is employed by the person concerned, we have to ask whether that is consistent with the standards that the House would expect. As far as I know there is no manual or text of "Erskine May" that says so. We had to be guided by what we thought was common sense. Here again, that was our conclusion, and it is for the House to judge whether that was the right conclusion.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Stewart

If it is the will of the House I shall give way.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon (York)

I understand why my right hon. Friend is arguing in that way, but surely the problem of injustice to people such as my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. Roberts) is not "What will the House decide in 1977 was appropriate for me in 1967?" but "What am I to do now?" As my right hon Friend said, what are the standards? The standards cannot be decided 10 years hence. They must be standards which are known by the House to be applicable in 1977 to the conduct in which an hon. Member is engaged. The Committee could not feed back retrospectively what the view of the House on conduct is now to what it was 10 years ago.

Mr. Stewart

With respect, my hon. Friend is trying to do exactly what I was trying to avoid—to argue the matter of substance. What I said was that we believed that we had a duty to make a decision on the question whether the conduct was consistent or inconsistent. I say that I believe that we were right to make a decision. Whether it was the right decision—my hon. Friend thinks that it was not—we are prepared to leave to the judgment of the House.

Mr. Norman Lamont

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Did the Committee actually consider and, if so, for what reason—I do not think that this is absolutely clear—why a letter of resignation should be an occasion for a listing of interests? My right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) has indicated why the particular interest which he mentioned in that letter was in fact listed, but did the Committee consider whether a letter of resignation was the occasion for a listing of interests? One would have thought that a letter of resignation from the office of Home Secretary spoke for itself.

Mr. Stewart

We were dealing with a particular part of the letter which the right hon. Gentleman himself had wished to have read to the House, and we were obliged to notice the phrase in it relating to a certain company "for which I received no remuneration". If there had been nothing said whatever—

Mr. Maudling

It would, perhaps, have been better if in paragraph 33 the Committee had quoted what I actually said.

Mr. Stewart

I am bound to say that I assume that hon. Members have read not only the evidence but the evidence and the appendices. It will be found in other cases that important and necessary matters have to be relegated to appendices.

As I say, that phrase was there. If there had been no phrase whatever about whether the right hon. Gentleman had received anything at all, the letter would have had no relevance for us. The trouble was that it was there, and I merely repeat that, in our view, and in the light of the answers we received to questions, it was not a correct statement, and it is for the House to decide whether we were right about that.

Finally, we faced the task of reaching conclusions. I assure the House, and, in particular, I assure both the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend most closely concerned in this matter, that we were not unaware A the great distress and injustice to which they had been subjected, by the pillorying of them and the hurling against them of ill-defined and unpleasant accusations. I hope that we did our job, not only in the criticism which we made of them, but in the extent to which we made clear that much of that stuff was wholly unjustified, and I believe that I understood the hon. Members concerned to accept that we had done that.

We should have been happier—I ask the House to believe this—if we could have said with clear consciences at the end of the day that no hon. Member had been guilty either of a contempt or even of conduct inconsistent with the standards which we are entitled to expect, but, at the end of the day, having heard all the evidence and having read the documents, both individually and collectively, we thought the matter over and discussed it and so came to our conclusion.

We were 10 Back Benchers, different in political views, in background, in temperament, in the length and nature of our experience of public life. What we found in the end we had in common was a conclusion not only on the substance of the matter but on the precise and, I trust, careful wording in which it ought to be expressed. We were, if I may say so, drawn together by the compulsion of the facts towards a conclusion in which we all shared. It is that unanimous conclusion that we now lay before the House.

5.54 p.m.

Mr. Edward Heath (Sidcup)

The serious matters which we are discussing today, which have such great human implications, arise out of the statement which I made to the House on 18th July 1972. If I may, I shall briefly refresh the memory of the House about the purpose of that statement, as, indeed, I have refreshed my own memory of these matters by going back over the official documents at the time.

The purpose was to announce the action which was being taken as a result of the deep concern both inside and outside the House about allegations which had been made during Mr. Poulson's bankruptcy proceedings. There had been considerable pressure in the House and outside for the Government to institute a tribunal under the 1921 Act. The Leader of the House has recalled the dissatisfaction which many felt about the Lynskey tribunal. Others felt it equally about the Bank Rate tribunal. For that reason, I believe, many of us were extremely loth to set up an inquiry of that kind.

What I announced to the House on that occasion was that the Director of Public Prosecutions, after consultations with the Attorney-General and the Lord Advocate, had decided to instruct the Metropolitan Police to carry out inquiries into all those allegations and that for this purpose they had received a copy of the whole of the bankruptcy proceedings.

I went on to say that, for that reason, we were not prepared to set up a tribunal In answer to supplementary questions, I explained the reason why, which was as the Royal Commission on Tribunals had itself stated it: that it is almost impossible to take proceedings against anybody who has given evidence to a tribunal of inquiry. It was therefore decided—the Cabinet itself decided, after full consideration—that the law should be allowed to take its course.

I believe that events have justified that decision. I find it impossible to consider what the opinion of this country would be if those who have appeared before the courts and been found guilty of offences had been given immunity because they had given evidence to a 1921 Act tribunal. But I said also that when those proceedings were over another form of inquiry was not excluded, and, naturally, I did not commit myself or anyone else to what form of inquiry that would be.

I agree with what the Lord President has said today, that the Select Committee has proved to be a satisfactory form of inquiry. I pay my tribute to the Chairman, the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart), and to its members. It has become part of doctrine ever since the Select Committee on the so-called Marconi scandal carried out a very partisan inquiry that a Select Committee was not a suitable means of dealing with such matters. I believe that on this occasion the Select Committee has justified itself, with one reservation to which I shall come.

As the Chairman has just indicated, the Committee found itself faced with particularly difficult problems. There are two views in the House, both of which can be honourably held, as to whether Members of Parliament, and in particular, perhaps, members of a Shadow Cabinet, should have business activities outside the House. Some believe that they should not. Others believe that they are justified in so doing. The Select Committee says that this is a matter which requires further consideration.

There is then the question of declaration of interest. The situation in the House now is different from what it was in the 1960s. I find myself very much in agreement with the opening sentence of Mr. Speaker King's letter to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) to the effect that really the only safe course is to declare one's interest, however remote it may seem. On the other hand, we all know that interests may often be so remote that in the course of debate, especially a heated debate, it never occurs to one to declare them. On other occasions—I have certainly known this in my time in the House—interests have been so well known on both sides that a Member would have been open to the charge of tedious repetition if every time he rose to speak he stated his interest. Moreover, we have never declared interests at Question Time. But these are matters which have been rightly considered, and, I think, fairly considered, by the Committee.

I come now to paragraph 33 of the Select Committee's Report, which is directly concerned with the statement I made and the part of the letter from my right hon. Friend which I read out. The Committee has reached the conclusion that this was inconsistent with what is expected in the conduct of an hon. Member of the House. The Chairman of the Committee has attempted to justify that on the basis of the sentence about receiving no remuneration. But I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of the Select Committee to refer to his paragraph 33, wherein appears the sentence beginning: While the letter contains nothing that is untrue". If the Committee came to the conclusion that the letter contained nothing that is untrue, one can only deduce that the statement in it for which post I took no remuneration is also not untrue.

Therefore, I completely fail to understand the argument which has been put forward by the Chairman on this point. If the Committee believed that it was untrue, it ought surely to have said so in that statement in paragraph 33 and not included the opening phrase While the letter contains nothing that is untrue". If I had believed for one moment that that letter of resignation sent to me as Prime Minister by the Home Secretary contained anything of any kind which was in the least untrue or inadequate for the purpose, I should not have accepted the letter. I should have sent it back to him. The letter was for publication and went out in full at the same time as I read a considerable extract of it to the House. I do not believe that it was necessary for my right hon. Friend to have included that sentence except for the one reason that he indicated today—the motion on the Order Paper in the name of the Leader of the Liberal Party and his hon. Friends.

My right hon. Friend has expressed his objections to that motion and I had a further one. The motion did not specifically name my right hon. Friend as it ought to have done but referred only to "a Privy Councillor". The innuendo was that the Privy Councillor was my right hon. Friend. If the Leader of the Liberal Party and his hon. Friends had had the courage that they should have had, they would have named my right hon. Friend. That is why, as Prime Minister, I accepted that sentence in the letter and read it to the House.

I was faced with another problem—namely, whether it was right to accept my right hon. Friend's resignation at all. The present Prime Minister, speaking from the Opposition Benches—as a former Home Secretary of great experience—raised that point in a supplementary question. He said—and I summarise—that it was a long-established tradition that, although the Home Secretary had an overall responsibility for the Metropolitan Police, he in no way interfered with its activities in inquiries, in crimes or in any other way. When I read out that statement about the Home Secretary's resignation, the present Prime Minister said firmly, from a seated position, "No, no, no, no."

The problem that confronted me was whether I was justified in accepting the resignation, but my right hon. Friend insisted that I should do so because he said that people in the country would not understand if he continued in office as Home Secretary at the same time as the Metropolitan Police were making inquiries into the bankruptcy proceedings in which his name had been mentioned. My right hon. Friend insisted on that because he is an honourable man.

I believed in my right hon. Friend and I demonstrated that publicly by offering him another post in the Government, but he refused that for personal reasons. My right hon. Friend was absolutely honourable in what he did.

My right hon. Friend has not mentioned that earlier, on 5th July, he made a public statement about his connection with Mr. Poulson and that gentleman's firm, what he did as chairman, the fact that it was an overseas company and so on. All that was publicly known.

The Committee has really said that in offering his resignation to me, as Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend misled me. I do not believe that for a moment. There is some confusion about this. The Committee referred to my right hon. Friend's statement, but it was not a statement. The leader in The Guardian referred to a resignation speech to the House, but it was not a speech. It was a resignation letter to me, as Prime Minister.

My right hon. Friend has performed great services to this country in high offices of State, and the House and the whole country are grateful to him. I cannot accept the Lord President's advice to endorse this part of the Select Committee's Report. The Committee has misunderstood the position. In paragraph 33 of the Report the Committee contradicted itself. It was not justified in its strictures on my right hon. Friend. When I announced my right hon. Friend's resignation to the House, the Leaders of all the Opposition parties paid tribute to him and said that it was in accord with the highest standards of public life in this country that he should resign. I believed that then and I know of nothing to cause me to change my mind now. I believe that my right hon. Friend is an honourable man and that he should be supported.

6.4 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Strauss (Vauxhall)

I want to move the argument a little away from the course that it has so far pursued, namely, the discussion about whether certain points in the Report of the Select Committee were fair and whether different interpretations could be put on many or some of the allegations in the Report. I start—as most hon. Members do—with the assumption that the Report was fair. We know that it was the result of a great deal of consideration over a long period, and I think that the House will accept that the Report is fair.

The matter that I put before the House and ask it to consider is whether—on the assumption that the Report is correct and that the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend involved themselves in a way other than that expected of an hon. Member—it is right to leave the matter with mere agreement with the Report of the Select Committee. The House must consider whether, from the point of view of the esteem in which the House is held in the country, some further action is desirable. The action that I and my colleagues suggest—not in any vindictive spirit, but entirely from the point of view of maintaining the reputation of the House in the country—is a period of suspension.

I was rather surprised to hear the Leader of the House speak against the principle of suspension and to suggest that it was a wrong remedy. It has long been a remedy put forward by the Committee of Privileges. Suspension is a useful form of rebuke and, in many cases, it is highly desirable. To say that suspension should not be considered because it may sometimes alter the balance of the House means—and it can have no other meaning—that the penalties of suspension or expulsion should never be imposed. I cannot accept that. The question is whether suspension is appropriate in this case.

There are two ways of looking at the behaviour of the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend. For the sake of brevity I shall say their "misbehaviour", because that is what it comes to since it is suggested that they acted in a way contrary to the manner expected of them. Should this misbehaviour be considered as an internal parliamentary affair that we should decide upon and regulate according to our club atmosphere, with our knowledge of those concerned and the respect and friendship that we have for them? Should that be our guidance in deciding what action should be taken?

I suggest that it should not. This is not a club and it is not a matter of internal parliamentary affairs. This is a national affair and the national aspect of it is that there must remain in the mind of the whole public a high esteem for this body, because it is the emblem of democracy in this country and the means by which law and order are maintained through consent. Anything that weakens the system and, with it, the House is a bad thing, damaging to Parliament and to the country. That is my approach.

I ask my colleagues to consider whether, in this case, the action suggested in the motions put down by the Leader of the House—that is, agreement with the Report of the Select Committee—is adequate. We must remember that there is no doubt that the reputation of the House and its esteem have declined somewhat, year by year, for a variety of reasons. The evidence of that, which nobody can deny, has been that at every General Election the number of people voting has been smaller than at the previous election. That has happened over a period of years, and it is surely a sign of declining interest and confidence in Parliament.

More particularly, during the past few years, because of a number of unfortunate happenings—chiefly in local authorities—suspicion has been aroused and there has been disquiet about whether our democratic machinery nationally is quite as above board and acceptable as it ought to be. I should have thought that everyone accepted that there has been considerable public disquiet about the behaviour of some local authorities, though I believe that generally the standard of their probity is exceedingly high. Public opinion is exceedingly important.

This disquiet reached the shores of this House. There were rumours and suspicions, perhaps untrue, about certain hon. and right hon. Members. It was suggested that they had not been behaving properly.

Mr. Albert Roberts

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. John Lee (Birmingham, Handsworth)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have waived the usual procedure and, with the full approval of the House, allowed my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. Roberts) and the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) back into the Chamber. My right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart) said that he did not want to get involved in back-chat across the House. Surely if my hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman are to be allowed to remain, it must be on the condition that they sit and listen to the judgment of the House and do not indulge, in back-chat.

Mr. Speaker

It was the undoubted wish of the House that the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Gentleman should be allowed to remain. The right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart) gave way once or twice to the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling). I am sure that the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. Roberts) and the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet will want to listen rather than to interrupt every speaker, but if either feels strongly on a particular point, we must remember that the House has said that they have the right to be here, and we cannot have second-class hon. and right hon. Members in the Chamber.

Mr. Strauss

I thought that the point that I was making was uncontroversial.

Mr. Albert Roberts

I agree with some of the sentiments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), but he must bear in mind that he is proposing to use a steamroller. I am proud of the prestige of local authorities and of Parliament. I am proud of our associations inside the House. My right hon. Friend is saying how we should be dealt with. I want to make perfectly clear that I touched nothing inside the United Kingdom. I want to emphasise that. I hope that my right hon. Friend will realize—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman made a personal statement. If he feels that a statement of fact rather than opinion is wrong, he should intervene, but otherwise he would be wise to leave it to the House.

Mr. Strauss

The extent of the disquiet that exists may be limited, but it involves an important section of the public.

These doubts about our democratic processes reached the shores of this House and many people suggested that something should be done. It was claimed that the Poulson scandal might be connected with certain hon. or right hon. Members and the Prime Minister of the day was right to set up a Select Committee to look into the allegations.

We all agree that the Committee has done a very difficult job very well. The result of the Committee's investigation is the conclusion that my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. Roberts) and the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling)— I leave out Mr. Cordle because he is now irrelevant—behaved in this matter in a way in which hon. Members ought not to behave. That was the unanimous verdict of the 10 members of the Select Committee.

We are now asked to say whether we agree with the Committee that my hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman behaved in a way that hon. Members should not behave. However, it is also suggested that we should do nothing about it, that we should move on to the next business and leave it at that. I do not believe that the public would accept that that is the appropriate action for the House to take.

The House must maintain the standards of honour that it has traditionally enjoyed for centuries. A dismissal of the Select Committee's verdict by merely agreeing with it and refusing to take any further action would be a grave mistake and would be damaging to our standing in the eyes of the public.

Among many sections of the public a formal agreement by this House with the Committee's verdict will carry no weight. We shall be accused of whitewashing hon. Members who have misbehaved. I know that this would not be the intention, but it is the view that would be held, and the one way of avoiding it would be for us to take some reasonable positive action.

We must also avoid the feeling that someone who has misbehaved or done something that he should not have done may get special treatment or sympathy because he is liked or has done great service to Parliament. I am the first to agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton has served the House well and that the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet has served honourably in far higher positions and has done the House and the country a great service. However, we must consider whether what they have done in connection with Poulson has shocked people in the country and now requires some action. We must not refrain from action because of the old school tie, or for any other reason.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan (Farnham)

I have deep respect for the right hon. Gentleman's views, but he is behaving as though the House were a club. He is suggesting that we have the right to determine who should be an hon. Member and how he should operate. That is a matter for the electorate and not for the House. The right hon. Gentleman is doing the House a grave disservice by suggesting that when we are dealing only with the conventions of the House we should seek to impose our will on the electorate.

Mr. Strauss

The honourable behaviour of this House depends on the rigid observance of the code of conduct that has been established for many years and operated in successive Parliaments. If that code is violated, the House is not only entitled to take action but, from the public's point of view, should take action, whatever the record of the hon. Member involved and however popular he may be. That code has been violated in these cases.

I suggest we should take action apart from just agreeing with the Committee's Report. Some hon. Members have argued that we should not do this because it is known that a few hon. Members in a small way do not observe the rules of the code of conduct and that it is hypocritical to take up the case of two or three hon. Members and punish them just because there is a public row. I do not share that view. As Chairman of the Committee of Privileges, I know as well as anyone that there is always a small fringe of hon. Members who do not follow 100 per cent. the conduct that is expected of them. However, that is no reason for the House to refrain from taking appropriate punitive action when, after full investigation of a flagrant case, it appears that the code of the House has been violated.

Another argument against my proposal seems stronger. It is that if we suspend an hon. Member, we shall be depriving his constituents of representation and disfranchising them. In fact, an hon. Member who is suspended is able to come into the precincts of the House, his secretarial assistance continues to be provided, and he may communicate as much as he wishes with Ministers. The only things that he may not do are speak in the House, ask Questions, table motions, or vote. No one can say that an hon. Member who is suspended is not able to put forward the grievances, views and troubles of his constituents.

That, in short, is our case. There is no need for me to elaborate it any further. We maintain that this is not an internal parliamentary affair. This is a national affair. We believe that effective and demonstrable action should be taken against those involved, exemplary action that will show that we disapprove strongly of any breach of our code and will not tolerate it in future.

6.20 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell (Beaconsfield)

I ask the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Speaker

I remind the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) that he need not move his amendment now. I shall put the amendments at the end of the debate.

Mr. Bell

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I realised that it was your intention that the amendments should be formally moved together at the end of the debate.

What esteem does the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) think that the House would have in the country if it were seen to have taken exemplary action against hon. Members without giving exact attention to whether they were guilty of the offences alleged against them? For some little time the right hon. Gentleman addressed us but he did not direct any attention to the question whether my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) and the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. Roberts) were guilty of the conduct of which the Report o f the Select Committee finds them guilty.

This is a matter of great importance, because when the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart) was discussing the procedure that the Select Committee adopted—he agreed that it was not the procedure recommended by the AttorneyGeneral—he said, as Chairman of the Committee, that when it came to the end of the evidence it decided that the analogy that the Attorney-General had made was a false one and that a Select Committee investigation was not comparable with an inquiry under Board of Trade legislation because such an inquiry presents a final judgment whereas the Committee would merely lay its recommendations before the House. However, the right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the House and the right hon. Member for Vauxhall himself invite us to accept the findings of the Select Committee without more ado.

We are invited lo accept its findings because it was a Committee of 10 Back Benchers from all parties which spent an immense amount of time and trouble upon the inquiry. The implication was that there would be a certain disloyalty to our Committee if we did not accept its decision. There was the implication that we should be brushing it aside and that we should accept the fruits of its labours. If that is to be the attitude—namely, that we owe some duty to the Select Committee and we should accept what it has stated—then it was plainly the duty of the Select Committee to follow the procedure recommended by the Attorney-General. However, it did not do so.

The amendment that I shall later move suggests that we should replace the words "agrees with" by "take note of". The Leader of the House has said that to adopt it would be to take a very different judgment from that taken by the Select Committee. I suppose that the right hon. Gentleman was suggesting that it would imply some sort of disapproval. I do not think it necessarily does. After all, it is fairly common for the Government to invite the House to take note of their policies. In doing that, the Government are not inviting us to disown them or to disagree with them; they merely invite us to take note of them. I venture to suggest that that is what we should do on this occasion. It is not a positive and confident assertion of a different conclusion.

I suggest that we are not very well placed to reach a firm and decided conclusion. This is an extremely important matter. It is extremely important for the two hon. Members who are concerned. By reflection it is important for the House because it is dealing with their interests and asserting its own rights in respect of them. We cannot treat it as a matter of any minor importance.

I agree very much with most of what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and I admired his saying it. However, I cannot go along with him about the value of the Select Committee procedure in these matters. Select Committees serve us very well on a great variety of subjects and most of us serve on them, but they are most valuable when they are most political and least valuable when they are most juridical. Once there is a real issue joined on a matter of personal culpability, the Select Committee procedure is not very good.

For example, in paragraph 3 of the Report the Committee draws attention to the vast volume of papers that it had to consult. I think it consulted 22,000 files, 8 cubic yards of books, transcripts of bankruptcy proceedings and other documents that are set out in a most impressive elaboration. Having absorbed that vast mass of material and heard many witnesses from the police and those involved in the bankruptcy proceedings, there was the "trial" of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet. I have no doubt that there was a similar trial of the hon. Member for Normanton. The trial of my right hon. Friend lasted only two hours. That took place under an inquisitorial procedure. It might be said "That is all right. He was there and he could say what he liked." That is not so. At one stage my right hon. Friend was sharply rebuked with the words "We ask the questions, you just answer them."

At the end of the two hours, my right hon. Friend's part in the procedure was finished. In due course the Committee elaborated the finding of guilt. In judicial proceedings, that would be the equivalent of formulating the charge. We have reached that stage. The real proceedings would then begin. They would be accusatorial and not inquisitorial. There would be prosecution and defence. There would be cross-examination. We cannot try an individual in a really contested issue without cross-examination. It cannot be done and no one ever tries to do it.

It is terribly unsatisfactory to have the examination undertaken by members of the Select Committee. They inevitably become embroiled with the person who is answering the questions. They begin to become committed, perhaps in a hostile way. It is easy enough to see that that is so by reading the questions. There were quite strong implications at certain points that the combination of business interests and the position of Shadow spokesman is not really compatible. That may or may not be, but it is the practice of the House that it is compatible. Any prejudice that arose from that would be wrong prejudice.

I concentrate on my right hon. Friend but my remarks apply very much to the hon. Member for Normanton. In the end we come down to two things—namely, the debate on Malta and the resignation letter. I emphasise that those are the only two adverse findings in the Report. All the other findings are verdicts of not guilty.

First, there was the debate on Malta. It was a debate on the defence establishment at Malta. It ran wider and the level of aid came into it, but essentially it was about the level of defence in Malta. Everyone in the House knows that the major consideration that we had in mind in discussing the withdrawal of our establishment in Malta was the fairly shattering effect that it looked like having on the Maltese economy. The question of correlative aid was inevitably linked, but as far as it went it was the case—the fact, as the right hon. Member for Fulham would call it—that the project with which my right hon. Friend was concerned was already covered by a grant of aid which had already been made—in the past tense. Therefore, it hardly arose in that debate about Malta.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet was speaking in what was primarily a defence debate and was putting forward the view of the official Opposition. I know that the Select Committee said that he should have declared his commercial interests. I am not sure why. They would not seem to me to have been very relevant. Lord Maybray-King, the then Speaker, re-read the debate before giving his opinion on this matter. I prefer his opinion to that of the Select Committee.

I emphasise again that we have motions before us today to suspend or to expel a right hon. Gentleman for conduct which Mr. Speaker at the time thought entirely proper, and which many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House also thought was entirely proper but on which the balance of estimation of some of our colleagues, whom we respect, goes the other way. That is the Malta debate. There is nothing more in it than that.

The only other matter is the resignation letter with which my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup has dealt most admirably. He drew attention to the inconsistency in paragraph 33, but I invite attention to what the Select Committee said in paragraph 4.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop (South Shields)

The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to inconsistency, repeating what was said by his right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath). At the end of that paragraph there is a reference to the other connections that the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) had with Mr. Poulson. Surely that makes clear the point about which the Select Committee was concerned.

Mr. Bell

I think that the hon. Gentleman is confused. Perhaps I may come to his point next but one, because I want to deal first with paragraph 4 where the Select Committee stated that it did not invite observations by the Members concerned in response to its conclusions because everything had been put to them. The words are: In the event, no new evidence or accusation emerged that was not fully described and put to the Members concerned during their evidence". No one can say that the resignation letter was put to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet during his evidence. Whatever its purport may have been—this is a separate point—it cannot be said to have been "fully described" and put to him during his evidence when it was not put to him at all.

The fact that it was one of the papers in the folder appears to have a sublime irrelevance. The right hon. Member for Vauxhall said that there were two facts here and that they did not need to he put to anybody. One was that my right hon. Friend wrote the letter and the other was that it was read to the House at his request, and therefore, there was nothing to put to him. I wonder what we would think of the proceedings in our courts if it were said "We knew the facts, so there was no need to ask the accused for any explanation". Why not just find him guilty and save a lot of time?

I find it absolutely incomprehensible. I cannot think how it happened. The Select Committee may have thought that it would be difficult for my right hon. Friend to explain the letter: it would not be my view. But the Committee could not say "It will be so difficult for him to explain it that we shall not bother to ask him, but just find him guilty."

I do not see how the House can support that finding. It cannot support it and then talk about the value of the Select Committee procedure when it is, in effect, trying individuals on specific charges. The procedure cannot be defended. The House cannot enhance its reputation by deciding, as the right hon. Member for Vauxhall wants it to decide, not to bother about it but to take some exemplary action to show how the House is determined to maintain its reputation.

I have not said very much about the intervention made by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop), because it does not have any substance or relevance. We are concerned with the conduct of right hon. and hon. Members of Parliament. A letter of resignation to the Prime Minister of the day is in no sense a proceeding in Parliament. The only thing that brings it in by the merest side wind is that my right hon. Friend either authorised or requested that it should be read to the House. But it is read to the House as his letter of resignation to the Prime Minister.

The right hon. Member for Fulham said that the Select Committee reached its own conclusion about the letter. I suggest that, with the best will in the world, it was making the error of transferring the mental attitudes of 1976–77 to the circumstances of 1972. It is easily done. In judicial proceedings there would be a lot of hesitation before raking around in matters that were 10 to 13 years old, because the recollection of people is a bit dim after such a time. A Select Committee has a very difficult job when it starts on that road. But, if it does it, it is under a duty to transfer itself psychologically to the preoccupations, the state of mind and relative importance of the different considerations that prevailed at the time that it is examining.

Mr. Phillip Whitehead (Derby, North)

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bell

Yes, when I have completed this point. That was in the forefront of people's minds. My right hon. Friend's connection with the Poulson business had been amply covered in the statement that he made to the Press some weeks earlier. Therefore, it would have been rather odd if he had put it into his resignation letter to the Prime Minister. Indeed, the Prime Minister's reaction was that one sentence was out of place, but he understood why it was put in.

Mr. Whitehead

Taking into account the whole context of the resignation letter, will the hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House in what way standards have changed between 1972 and 1976 or 1977?

Mr. Bell

The hon. Gentleman misunderstood me. I did not say that standards had changed. I said that the preoccupations and the relative importance of various considerations in this matter were different. [Interruption.] I am sure that the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) will have an opportunity later to say what he thinks.

When looking at the resignation letter in this context, as the Select Committee did, and making it the main pillar of its condemnation, it should have borne in mind that it was a resignation letter, not an explanation of my right hon. Friend's relationship with Mr. Poulson. Those are almost the words used by the Select Committee. It was not intended as such. I realise that its own inquiry was about that matter, and the Committee thereby got itself into the wrong state of mind.

I intend to move my amendment because I think that this is the appropriate action to take. It does not rebuke the Committee at all. We often take note of matters, implying no adverse criticism, no blame and no dissent. It implies that we have been helped by the Committee's deliberations but that we retain a final judgment in our own minds because we are not quite satisfied with the conclusions that it has reached.

I turn to the consequences of these matters for the individuals concerned. Can anybody in the House doubt the severity of the consequences that have already accrued to my right hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman as a result of the rumours, the inquiry, the report and this debate? Is that not enough? Was it not enough for the former hon. Member for Bournemouth, East, Mr. Cordle, to whose case I have not referred because it would be a matter of supererogation? It shows how much these matters sting, even undeservedly. I doubt whether Lord Boothby has ever forgotten the Select Committee that investigated him in 1941. These things remain with one for life.

The House will increase its dignity, enhance its reputation for fairness and hon. Members will go home with a better conscience if they accept my amendments tonight.

6.42 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton (Fife, Central)

I hope that the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) will be voted on after my amendment, because in the event of mine falling I want to vote for the next best. I believe that many of my hon. Friends feel the same. I do not know whether Mr. Speaker has indicated the order in which he will put the votes, but it is important to know.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern)

Mr. Speaker will be in the Chair and he will determine the order in which he will put the amendments.

Mr. Hamilton

Nobody who takes part in these debates can get any great pleasure out of them, but we cannot escape the issue. We cannot dismiss it as being of no consequence. The Select Committee consisted of right hon. and hon. Members from all parties, all of whom had considerable experience. They reached a unanimous verdict.

The Government's motion asks the House simply to agree with the Report. My right hon. Friend the Lord President said that we should leave it at that. He properly said that thereafter the House would have a free vote and that we should be entitled to vote for whichever amendments we wanted. That is how it should be.

I hope that the House will not accept the principle that we shall have done enough simply by accepting the Report. To do that would be interpreted outside as an attempt to shrug it off as being of little consequence and that we had decided that no further action was merited. That would be damaging to the prestige of Parliament, which is already regarded outside with a disturbing degree of cynicism.

A plausible case can be advanced for taking no action. It is undeniably true that this is a measure of the lethargy and apathy with which the House has treated the whole question of Members' outside interests. They have been treated as being of little consequence, partly because we thought that our interests were no one else's business and partly because we found it difficult to come to a consensus view about where the line should be drawn for ethical and unethical conduct.

The so-called safeguards that we sought to introduce with the register of Members' outside financial interests was a puny, inadequate attempt to deal with a problem which, in my view, has grown in importance and size in the years since I came to the House. The register of interests is now ridiculed as being of no consequence because of the flagrant disregard of it by one right hon. Gentleman in the House.

At the moment, we have no definitive ground rules covering our behaviour as Members of Parliament either inside or outside the House in respect of financial interests that we might have. We have an imperative to declare any private pecuniary interests when we are participating in debate. That has been shown to be inadequate to prevent a recurrence of the situation that has arisen out of the Poulson affair.

My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. Roberts) will not mind if I say of him, in no hostile way, that by keeping quiet in the House in debate or at Question Time he had no cause to disclose an interest in Poulson. Any hon. Member can, by sitting tight, have as many outside interests and make as many private representations to Ministers as he likes without anyone knowing his interests. That is clearly unsatisfactory. Our present procedure does not inhibit any hon. Member from behaving corruptly without the House knowing it.

The facts that have come out of the Poulson affair have arisen purely fortuitously. It was purely fortuitous that Poulson became bankrupt and that he happened to keep every scrap of paper that he received. If he had not been declared bankrupt or if he had not kept those papers, the situation could have festered and this House could have gone on thinking that it was a nice, quiet, decent, honourable club and that nothing was wrong.

There is something wrong with our procedures. The Select Committee procedure is not satisfactory, but not for the reasons that have been suggested by some hon. Members. Select Committees lean over backwards to give a fair deal. Had the terms of reference been different, the Report would have been different. The Select Committee procedure is inadequate because it lets people off who should not get off. I fear that much hard thinking must be done.

We should have a permanent Committee under Mr. Speaker's control to be a guardian of the good name of the House. When there is any kind of rumour anywhere about an hon. Member, instead of its being taken up by means of an early-day motion the hon. Member concerned should be brought informally in front of the Committee and asked about his behaviour. No evidence would be taken, but that procedure might nip in the bud something that might otherwise fester for years and years.

Some hon. Members might say—I have taken this view myself—that a lot of Members of Parliament have respectable outside sources of income. I have never taken the view that we want a House of Commons with 100 per cent. full-time Members and no interests, paid or unpaid, outside. It would be a less valuable House of Commons if that were so. In any case, the electors who send Members here will normally know whether a Member has outside interests. Indeed, there are some constituents, I understand—particularly of those on the Opposition side—who insist that Members should have a sufficiently adequate private source of income so as to make them independent of their Member's salary. There might be a case for that. My own constituents would never accept that—but it depends on one's tastes.

Here I come precisely to the findings of the Select Committee. I dismiss the Cordle case, except to say that I think that he prevented an otherwise possibly violent debate on his case. I do not feel any sympathy for him. I think that he took the wisest course in doing what he did last Friday. However, the main charges against the other two Members are, first, that my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton failed to disclose his relationship with Poulson. That was not disclosed to the House of Commons because my hon. Friend was a silent Member in respect of the House. He did not make much contribution here. He never had cause. I shall not be too cruel and say that he deliberately did not have cause. It was his nature not to take part very much in the proceedings of this House, and, therefore, he did not choose to take any opportunity to declare that interest. But the charge against him was that he failed to disclose it to persons with whom he was dealing. I am not too sure that that would be regarded by some people as a contempt of the House or as acting not in accordance with the rules of conduct that we clearly accept. It is an extremely vague area with which one is dealing. My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) has tabled amendments to that effect.

However, in the case of the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling), one of the criticisms of him is that he failed to disclose his interests in the course of a debate on Malta. I want to refer in some detail to that point. I take great exception in this matter. The matter of the letter of resignation has been dealt with by others. The right hon. Gentleman justified his non-declaration in that debate, which took place on 2nd February 1967, by saying that he had no direct pecuniary interest in Malta at that time. Let me put on record the chronology.

That debate took place on 2nd February 1967. That was just seven months after the right hon. Gentleman's first contact with Poulson. It was just four months after his first appointment by Poulson. It was just three months after Poulson had paid £5,000 to his wife's favourite charity. It was just three months after he had signed five letters introducing himself to Maltese Ministers as the chairman of Poulson's company. It was just one month after the right hon. Gentleman himself had visited Malta. It was less than three weeks after he himself had written to the Maltese Minister of Health hoping that he could be of service in connection with the Gozo Hospital, and it was only three days after he himself had asked a Private Notice Question in this House about Malta.

It was not until 5th November 1975, nearly nine years after the debate, that the right hon. Gentleman saw fit to write to Mr. Speaker King asking him whether he should have declared his interests in the debate nine years previously, and only because he thought that the letter that would come from Mr. Speaker King would help him in his libel case with Granada Television. That is all in the record and it is all in the Report. Mr. Speaker King obliged.

I was never one who had any great regard for Mr. Speaker King's judgment. I think that the Select Committee is right to say that his judgment in that case was wrong. If Mr. Speaker King had read that debate, he would have seen that his supposition that it was to do exclusively with defence matters was misjudged and inaccurate. The debate concerned the level of aid. Moreover, the Select Committee's Report recalls Mr. Speaker Morrison's injunction. He said that one of the purposes of the declaration of interest was a matter of prudence in case an hon. Member should be suspected of unavowed motives. Therefore, if the right hon. Gentleman had been obeying the principle laid down by Mr. Speaker Morrison—that there might be suspicion if he did not declare his interest—that of itself should have been enough for him to say in that debate "All hon. Members will know—I have said it outside and to the Press, but I had better say it to the House—that I have financial interests in Malta." Why did he not do that?

In commenting on Mr. Speaker King's letter, I should also say that he said that the right hon. Gentleman was speaking as an official spokesman for his party—as though that made a hoot of difference. The implication is that, if one is speaking as a Front Bench spokesman for one's party, one need not declare an interest and that it is only poor Back Benchers such as myself who must do so. That is a very strange thing, but it is not surprising coming from Mr. Speaker King.

There is no doubt in my mind, and, I suspect, in the minds of many in this House and outside it, that the right hon. Gentleman behaved in that particular case in less than an honourable way in not disclosing his interest in the debate.

Mr. Mark Carlisle (Runcorn)

The hon. Gentleman seemed to take objection and made comment that it was not until November 1975 that my right hon. Friend wrote to Mr. Speaker to ask for his assistance in whether he felt he ought to have declared an interest in 1967. Can the hon. Gentleman explain why and how he thinks that my right hon. Friend could and should have sought Mr. Speaker's advice before criticism was made of his not declaring an interest nine years later?

Mr. Hamilton

Prior to the debate, if he had any doubt in his mind, he could have asked Mr. Speaker. That was the time. If there was any doubt in his mind that he should have declared an interest in the course of a debate in which he knew he would be taking part, there was nothing to stop that. It is often done. There is nothing to stop an hon. Member asking Mr. Speaker whether he should or should not declare an interest. I am sorry, but the record is there. I have given my opinion and the chronology of it. The House must decide.

Equally incredible is that the right hon. Gentleman denied that there was any link between the payment made by Poulson to his wife's charity, the Adeline Genée Theatre Trust, and his own financial interest in Poulson's business. Financial help to his wife and to his son were all part of the same set-up. That is quite clear in the letter that the right hon. Gentleman wrote to Mr. Poulson—set out in Appendix 61 to the report—dated 6th April 1968.

I want to put it on record for those, either inside or outside the House, who have not read the Report. This is what the right hon. Gentleman wrote to Poulson: The amount Baker sent me set out very graphically the total cost to you of the Maud-ling family and their interests. It certainly is colossal. I only hope you think it is worth while". Let the House judge what was the relationship of the Poulson payment to the right hon. Gentleman, to his wife and her charity, and to his son. I leave it at that. It is for the House to judge.

I have a high regard for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I think that everybody in the House, certainly on this side, has a high regard for him. I have certain reservations about the Select Committee procedure, but not for the reasons adduced by my right hon. Friend or by the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell). I do not believe that the House can leave this matter at the stage where we accept the Report and no more. I take a stern view of these matters. I have a high regard for this House, and I object very much to the phrase "a sanctimonious mob" which was used by my right hon. Friend. Anybody who reads the report of the Allighan debate in 1947 and sees who voted on that occasion for the expulsion of Allighan will realise that it was a respectable lot.

I can remember some of those who voted for expulsion. There was the right hon. Winston Churchill. He said that it was not sufficient just to suspend for six months, still less to take note of the Report. Quinton Hogg, now Lord Hailsham, who delivered a violent and learned speech, said that expulsion was the only course of action. The then Prime Minister voted for expulsion, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle). Mr. Zilliacus, a great Left-winger, voted for it. A former Tory Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan, voted for expulsion. The right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) should read the voting record of his father on this matter. Lloyd George's son and his daughter, Lady Megan, both voted for expulsion.

There are honourable precedents for voting for the expulsion of a Member, and I hope that my hon. Friends will remember them when they go into the Lobby tonight in, I hope, support of my amendments.

7.2 p.m.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson (Montgomery)

I was one of the 10 members of the Select Committee which had the unpleasant and arduous task of going through the evidence and listening to it, and which came to a unanimous conclusion which we thought was manifestly fair and just not only to the three Members who are criticised but also to the House. I have listened with great care to what has been said today by the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) and by the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. Roberts), and I am not shaken in my conviction that the Report that we presented to the House was manifestly fair and just.

The hon. Member for Normanton complained that he did not know what standards of conduct were expected of a Member of this House. The hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) suggested that when considering this matter the Select Committee confused the atmosphere, the standards and the circumstances of 1976–77 with those that we expected at an earlier age.

I come to the point made by the hon. Member for Normanton. He referred specifically to Lord George-Brown as he now is and said "I do not know whether or not I disclosed my interest to George Brown." The hon. Gentleman was specifically asked about this by the Committee, and if necessary I can refer to the evidence, as opposed to opinion. Let me quote the answer given by the hon. Gentleman to the Chairman of the Committee.

The Chairman said, at Question 1163: The question I really want to put to you about this and several other letters is, did the recipients of the letters know that you were employed and paid by Mr. Poulson? Would Mr. Brown"— referring to Lord George-Brown, as he now is, who was being approached to try to get Poulson appointed— have known that when he wrote to you?". The hon. Gentleman replied: I would say he would not know, Mr. Chairman, but I did not take it as acting within my employment with Poulson. I took it really, as you might say, as my thinking as an individual that he was a capable person for being a nominee. The truth is that the hon. Member for Normanton was being paid £2,500 a year by Mr. Poulson, at a time when the salary of a Member of Parliament was £1,500, yet he chose not to disclose that matter to Lord George-Brown when he intervened. What conclusion could the Select Committee have come to—and we fell over backwards to try to remember the standards that we thought were expected of a Member of Parliament in those days—other than that the hon. Gentleman fell below the standards that were expected of an hon. Member?

Mr. Ronald Bell

The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to me, and I want to correct something he said. I did not at any time use the word "standards", nor was it relevant to my argument.

Mr. Hooson

I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman used the word "circumstances". I am prepared to accept that.

I now come to the letter written by Lord Maybray-King in reply to a letter from the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet. It is important to look at the finding of the Select Committee on the Malta debate. I think that the Committee fell over backwards to be fair. It said in paragraph 31: The maintenance of aid to Malta was certainly in Mr. Poulson's interests and consequently in Mr. Maudling's interests, since he was concerned not only with the hospital but with the Mgarr harbour and port facilities developments. The Committee's finding was that the debate had been about aid to Malta and was not limited to defence.

I now turn to Appendix 70. What is strange about this procedure is that, having listened to the evidence, one realises that part of the evidence has been presented today and not the whole of it. If one looks at the exchange of letters between the right hon. Member for Chip- ping Barnet and Lord Maybray-King, one sees the ground upon which the right hon. Gentleman was asking Lord Maybray-King for an opinion.

The right hon. Gentleman wrote: The facts are these. I was Chairman of a company in association with Mr. Poulson, and we were to receive 20 per cent. of any fees he earned overseas. He had been appointed in November 1966 as architect for a hospital in Gozo, and my company were, therefore, entitled to 20 per cent. of his fees from it. The hospital was to be financed from British aid, and the British Government had some months before agreed in principle that the money would come from the funds already allocated to aid to Malta. The right hon. Gentleman did not mention Poulson's interest in obtaining the contract for Mgarr harbour and port facilities developments. Lord Maybray-King was giving his opinion on the basis that the debate was about defence matters. The right hon. Gentleman himself in that debate was querying whether the aid programme to Malta would continue. Lord Maybray-King was never asked—

Mr. Maudling rose—

Mr. Hooson

I shall give way in a moment. Lord Maybray-King was never asked for his opinion about the involvement of the right hon. Gentleman with Mr. Poulson and his companies in obtaining contracts for Mgarr harbour and port developments.

Mr. Maudling

Mgarr harbour had nothing to do with British aid.

Mr. Hooson

The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that at the time there was a great fear in Malta that British aid would cease. The developments projected for Malta depended to a large extent on the maintenance of the economy of the country, which in turn depended upon British aid.

I have a warm affection and respect for the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet, and nothing that has happened has changed that affection and respect, but it was the unanimous view of the Select Committee that in connection with the Malta debate the right hon. Gentleman was at fault in not disclosing his interest. The Committee did not find that he fell below the standard that one could reasonably expect of a Member of this House. It accepted that the right hon. Gentleman made a mistake of judgment on this matter and was at fault in so doing.

But it was a different finding from that in paragraph 33. I think that the right hon. Gentleman must be quite fair with the House, that it was not only the question of the Gozo hospital that affected the Committee. It had to consider the whole of the evidence, and it had to consider the letters that he signed himself to Malta in relation to the whole matter. I do not think for a moment that the right hon. Gentleman can say that the Committee was in any way unjust or unfair to him.

I come now to the matter that has been the major point of criticism today.

Mr. James Kilfedder (Down, North)

The hon. and learned Member has highlighted one point by referring to the fact that some part of the evidence has been presented in the Chamber this afternoon but not all the evidence. Surely this is where we are in some difficulty because we are being asked in a sense to act almost like a jury of 12 men, but how many hon. Members have read all the evidence?

I accept what the Select Committee said, but we were not there to hear the replies given to the questions. There are many hon. Members who are not in the Chamber and who will not play any part in this decision.

Mr. Hooson

If the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) is asking me whether I think that there are grave deficiencies in the Select Committee system of investigation, I think that there are. The right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) criticised the tribunals of inquiry which are set up under the 1921 Act. Equal criticisms can be made of the Select Committee system. I rather agree with the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) when he said that the defects of the Select Committee system are almost to the benefit of those being inquired into. That is a professional view. I am sure that all the professional lawyers—there were a number of them among the 10 members of the Committee—would agree with me. There were no back-up services. One had either to accept or to reject piece of evidence. One could not say to the police, as one may do, for example, when prosecuting in a big case, "Investigate this matter, check up on it, cross-check on it." None of that was possible for us.

The Salmon Royal Commission criticised the Select Committee's ability to investigate properly such matters as this and pointed out how limited a Select Committee was in comparison with a full-scale police inquiry. I was diverted, however interestingly, by what the hon. Member said when he interrupted me.

I shall come to the main point of criticism. This is very important. If, in fact, the Select Committee has in any way been unfair and unjust, the House must reflect on that view. It is our belief that we were being fair and just. I quote the paragraph that was referred to in the letter of resignation and the evidence upon which we came to our finding, because nobody has so far referred to the evidence. This letter appears in Appendix 65 and is the part that was read out. I shall not read it all, as the right hon. Member has done, but only the first part of it: We discussed the assertions made by Mr. Poulson during his bankruptcy hearing. Among them there was one referring to myself, to the effect that before I accepted his invitation to become Chairman of an export Company, for which post I took no remuneration, he had made a covenant in favour of a charitable appeal which had my support. I do not regard this as a matter either for criticism or for investigation. The right hon. Gentleman was questioned about these matters of remuneration by the Chairman of the Select Committee. I pay tribute to the Chairman. He did a first-class job, as all the members of the Committee will agree, and was scrupulously fair and thorough. This was what he asked, at Question 1469: Mr. Maudling, will you describe to us the positions you held in the Poulson companies? (A) Yes indeed. I was Chairman of Construction Promotions for fifteen months; I was Chairman of ITCS from November 1966 to my resignation in 1970 and I was a part-time Director of OSB from, I think, 1967 to 1969. Then at Question 1477 the Chairman asked: What remuneration did you receive in respect of each of the companies you have mentioned? (A) In Construction Promotions I was Chairman for fifteen months and received £625 which was an annual rate of £500. OSB I was a Director for about two years. I was to be paid at a rate of £2,000 a year. I am not in receipt of the whole of that but a proportion of it. I was at the first meeting of 1TCS in November 1966 and it was accepted that the salary of the Chairman should be £9.500 but I felt that it would be wrong to take that fee until the company became profitable. This was a company engaged in major projects which take a long time to come to fruition and therefore I decided not to take any remuneration whatsoever from ITCS until the company became profitable. Alas, it never became profitable so I took no remuneration at all from ITCS at any time. Then at Question 1478 the Chairman asked: One of the descriptions of this transaction that you have just mentioned describes it as the fees were due to you but you lent them to the company? (A) I tell you what happened about that; it was probably my mistake. When my first fees became due I said I do not want the money at present but I would like to draw it in the future when the company is profitable. Therefore, pass it to me and I will pass it back to you; treat it as a loan. In other words, if I waive my fees to the company it is a gift to the company. If I postpone them it is a loan to the company. There was a mistake. Later, with my accountants, we corrected the books to alter it from a loan but as director's fees I was entitled to draw these fees but for the time being I did not want to do so. 1479. But if it was for the time being, that would amount to a loan for the company—(A) Exactly. Question 1481 reads: What about if the company came to the point where it made a profit?—Would these fees then have been paid to you?—(A) Yes.

Mr. Maudling

With respect, does the hon. and learned Member disagree with any single word that I said?

Mr. Hooson

I then turn to the letter again, in which the right hon. Gentleman said: I accepted his invitation to become Chairman of an export Company, for which post I took no remuneration". The criticism that can be made of the Committee is that we were unduly fair in the finding. I shall read the finding: the Prime Minister … announced to the House that, arising from Mr. Poulson's public examination in bankruptcy, there was to be a police investigation into Mr. Poulson's activities (App 65). He also announced that since Mr. Maudling was responsible for the Metropolitan Police it had been agreed that it would not be appropriate for him to continue as Home Secretary, and that he had resigned (col 402–3). The Prime Minister read an extract from a letter he had received from Mr. Maudling, stating that he did so at Mr. Maudling's request. The letter contained the following passage "… assertions that … before I accepted his (Mr. Poulson's) invita- tion to become Chairman of an export company, for which post I took no remuneration, he had made a covenant in favour of a charitable appeal which had my support. I do not regard this as a matter either for criticism or for investigation. That was the part of the letter that was quoted: It was in these terms, therefore, that Mr. Maudling chose to describe his relationship with Mr. Poulson to the House. While the letter contains nothing that is untrue"— that is, I think, where the Committee can be said to have been extremely fair— Your Committee consider that had the House been aware both of the close business relationship between Mr. Poulson and Mr. Maudling and the nature of the financial arrangements between them, that it would have considered Mr. Maudling's statement to have been lacking in frankness. That is still my conclusion. I have heard the explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman today, which, I am sorry to say, we could not question him about. It was a matter—

Mr. Michael Mates (Petersfield)

The Committee could have done so.

Mr. Hooson

It was in that respect only that the Committee came to the conclusion, very reluctantly but clearly, that the right hon. Gentleman's conduct was inconsistent with the standards that the House was entitled to expect.

Mr. Maudling

Why did not the hon. and learned Gentleman ask me that?

Mr. Hooson

The right hon. Gentleman has asked me why he was not asked about those matters. The right hon. Gentleman, I think, will agree that most of the examination, or a great deal of it, of him by the Committee from all its members was about his financial relationship with Mr. Poulson and his companies. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the first company of which he became chairman, which paid him £650, was the first company to enter into the covenant. That covenant was changed later in, I think I am right in saying, January of the following year, to the second company. This was in 1967. Mr. Poulson himself entered into a personal covenant, because the bank wanted it, later in 1967.

But here was the clearest statement in the letter to the Prime Minister: I took no remuneration and it was not a matter either for criticism or for investigation". Could anyone have said that that statement in the light of the evidence was a frank disclosure? The right hon. Gentleman has today given his explanation, which to my mind was almost like a speech in mitigation. It should not affect the findings of the Committee but it might affect the conclusion that the House comes to as to whether any further action is needed.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn (Kinross and West Perthshire)

As a member of the legal profession. is the hon. and learned Member attempting to justify his part in this inquiry, is he attempting to sustain an indictment against the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) or is he attempting to tell the House that he observes the principles of natural justice from which the Select Committee departed?

Mr. Hooson

I do not accept that the Committee departed from the principles of natural justice. I think that the right hon. Gentleman had every opportunity of explaining his financial relationship with Mr. Poulson and the company. We can compare that with what he said in the letter. If the hon. and learned Member is asking me whether it would not have been wiser for the Committee to have asked the right hon. Gentleman directly about the letter, I say that it would have been because we would have removed a bogus point. [Interruption.]

In paragraph 4 of the finding, the Committee says: Having put to the Members concerned the matters that arose from the evidence they had examined, Your Committee reached their conclusions. They considered whether it would be appropriate to inform the Members of these conclusions and allow them to comment upon them before reporting to the House. Such a possibility was indicated by the Attorney General in the debate of 1 November (col. 1040), and was referred to by counsel for one of the Members"— that was Sir John Foster. In the event, no new evidence or accusation emerged that was not fully described and put to the Members concerned during their evidence. The right hon. Gentleman was questioned for an hour on almost nothing other than his financial relationship with Mr. Poulson. I say with the greatest respect that we had to consider the evidence of the right hon. Gentleman and to assess it. He was questioned at length. There were questions in his favour and probing questions against him. It was our judgment that this letter to the then Prime Minister, which was read out to the House, was simply not a frank disclosure. From that conclusion, I for my part in no way resile.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster)

Surely in all his remarks about the letter, which is absolutely vital, the hon. and learned Gentleman has totally ignored the most valid opinion of all, namely, that of the then Prime Minister to whom the letter was addressed. The hon. and learned Gentleman has totally ignored everything that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) has said.

Mr. Hooson

With the greatest respect, I have not ignored what the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), said. I listened with great interest to his speech. With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, however, he did not deal with this point. He made a valid criticism of paragraph 33 and the phrase: While the letter contains nothing that is untrue". As I have said, the criticism that can be made of the Committee is that it was excessively fair to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Ronald Bell rose—

Mr. Mates rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Hooson) is not giving way.

Mr. Hooson

I wish to complete my remarks. It is important that the evidence given to the Committee should have been referred to. This was something that we heard and considered, and there were four distinguished members of the Committee from the Conservative side of the House. We came to the conclusion that we had been fair and just.

I have been uncertain as to the correct course to take, particularly with regard to the right hon. Gentleman who was much the most impressive witness who came before the Committee. I take the same view as the Lord President. I hesitated a good deal before coming to that view and I have had the opportunity to discuss this with right hon. and hon. Members in the corridors. I think it is right to approve the Report and leave it at that. Speaking only for myself, I believe that to be the right course to take.

7.27 p.m.

Mr. John Mendelson (Penistone)

I am particularly glad to follow the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) after listening to his interesting and important speech. I begin by making one reference to the background to this debate, which, as every hon. Member has pointed out, is of the greatest possible constitutional importance. Any suggestions, and I have heard them on the radio in the past few days, that anyone is particularly eager to pursue either the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) or my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. Roberts) is so completely untrue—as is shown by the mood of this debate—that it ought to be thrown out of the window before the debate concludes.

It is only for that reason that I mention in passing that when I listened to the part of the letter of resignation from the right hon. Gentleman being read out—I was in the House at the time this happened—I would never have concluded that the evidence read by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery could be true. I had no such idea, which is the point the hon. and learned Member has made. I have always held the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet in the greatest possible respect and regard throughout the years when he has held high office. It is not on account of any eagerness that I take part in this debate to say what I believe I have to say.

The evidence we have so far heard and that which is in the Report does not justify the criticisms that we have heard of the Committee. I can well understand that the right hon. Member and my hon. Friend have doubts about the approach of the Committee. I exempt them from the comment that I am about to make. I have no sympathy whatever for those right hon. and hon. Members who have criticised the Committee without any justification based on evidence. They have no right to do so. They have pro- duced no facts for their criticism and there is no emotional reason why they should have indulged in such criticism. Members of the Committee have carried out their task with the greatest possible integrity and scrupulousness. That ought to be on the record. That is the first difficulty concerning the submission of the right hon. Gentleman.

The right hon. Gentleman is asking us to overthrow the Report of the Select Committee. I do not advance my view out of loyalty to a Committee. Those who have known me for some years know that I do not believe in blind loyalty, to a Select Committee or any other committee. Such a committee is made up of human beings, like any other body in this House, or like the House itself. If we are to follow the right hon. Gentleman's submission we must overthrow the Report of the Select Committee, and I can see no evidence that would justify us in doing so.

This brings me to my third point. The hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) made a completely false point when he criticised the Committee in a rather flippant manner that was not at all suitable to the occasion of this debate. He accused the Committee of having with hindsight judged the conduct of the Members involved as though they had committed what they did in 1977. That was the charge against the Committee, and that charge is totally untrue.

When I entered the House in 1959 the conduct with regard to declaring interests was exactly the same as it is today. It has nothing whatever to do with lists of interests. That is something which was added. The basic conduct was exactly the same. There was never any evidence for accusing members of the Select Committee of having been so na Ïve as to substitute the reality of 1977 for the reality of 1965, or vice versa. The Committee is not guilty of that charge.

Fourthly, the Chairman of the Select Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart), made a profoundly convincing speech, which was characterised throughout by his reluctance to wound. That is something for which throughout his career he has been appreciated by everyone in this House and in the country. He convincingly pointed out that the Committee could not accept the statement in the letter. I believe with complete conviction that the statement made by the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), was wholly insufficient to controvert what was said by the Chairman of the Select Committee.

This is not a debate in which it is enough to exchange declarations of loyalty, friendship, or even certificates of integrity. That is easy. What we have to consider, as the Chairman of the Select Committee said, is the real evidence. That is what the right hon. Member for Sidcup did not do.

That brings me to the reason why I support the amendment moved by the Father of the House. I take issue with the Lord President of the Council. I believe that he is giving out-of-date advice to the House when he refers to the great cases of the past, such as Charles Bradlaugh and all the others who were expelled by the House. The amendment does not relate to expulsion. It relates to suspension.

What the Lord President said is obviously meant to refer to a whole series of cases in the past. But my right hon. Friend must remember that we must make a careful distinction between people who make declarations of principle in no way connected with personal interest and the declared financial interests of any hon. Member involved.

It is important to tell the House why I arrived at the decision to support the amendment in the first place. I do not believe in a House of Commons of people who spend all their time reading Green Papers and white books and exchanging them with each other. I do believe in a House of Commons of Members who have some other interest if they so wish, although not all Members. I do not carry many of my right hon. and hon. Friends with me in that view. But it is well known that that happens to be my position.

However, we can all agree that the essential precondition of accepting the position that some Members concentrate entirely on their parliamentary work while others have some outside interest is that there must be the clearest public division between advancing general causes and one's own financial interests. That is the crux of this debate.

Contrary to the suggestion by the Lord President, the House of Commons has a duty to say what it thinks about the recommendation that is made in the amendment. It has no right to leave that to the electorate. The electorate must ultimately decide whether a Member is elected. That is not for this House to decide. But the House must decide whether the essential preconditions of good parliamentary conduct have been fulfilled.

It would have been quite wrong for the Select Committee, as it would be for the House, to substitute itself for the courts. It is absolutely right to limit ourselves in the functions on which we have a right to speak. On the other hand, I remind the House how the Committee was set up. Along with other hon. Members, I urged the Prime Minister to set up a committee of some inquiry. It took several days before a decision was made. 'There was no great eagerness to rush ahead and to start additional inquiries.

But during those days in the national Press and on the wireless it was erroneously mentioned that everyone except Members of Parliament could be had up for corruption. That statement was always untrue. Most right hon. and hon. Members will remember that I protested in this House and also to the chief political correspondent of the BBC. That statement was always untrue because the real position, as we all know, is that there should have been added "in pursuance of their parliamentary work". However, that phrase was forgotten and for several days the country believed that Members of Parliament were unlike all other citizens and could not be prosecuted for corruption.

That was a most dangerous situation and the danger has not passed. Parliamentary institutions live by the respect they receive from the electorate. Let us look at the examples of history. I do not want to quote them, but it is absolutely certain that the greatest strength of this House of Commons has been the conviction among a large majority of the people that it is an institution that they can respect. If that respect is endangered, even greater danger could follow.

It is for that reason and with no personal attitude in my heart that I believe the House of Commons must show that this conduct was wrong. In order to do so we must pronounce a suspension so that our disapproval finds its proper constitutional form. I support the amendment.

7.38 p.m.

Mr. Peter Thomas (Hendon, South)

Like the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), I had the unhappy distinction of being a member of the Select Committee. Unlike him, I do not propose to argue the merits of the conclusions that we unanimously reached. I do not think that it is right that a member of the Committee should try to advance in debate at this particular time why we reached particular conclusions. That is a matter for the Howe to decide on the Report we have made and on the evidence that supports the conclusions that we reached.

I would, however, take this opportunity to follow what the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart) said about the aspects of the Committee's work. I do not propose to take the time of the House for very long, but I should like to reiterate what was said by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery about the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Fulham. He was an admirable chairman and we benefited greatly by what he did.

Perhaps I may just refer to something mentioned by the Lord President about the anxieties about the appropriateness of a Select Committee to deal with the allegations, rumours and smears which existed last November when it was proposed that the Committee should be set up. The word "corruption" had been widely and indiscriminately used. Many honourable and respected names had been bandied about, and many doubts had been expressed about the wisdom of the House selecting a Committee that was required to conduct a roaming inquisitorial investigation with no specified charges, no named defendants and no rules of procedure.

As a person who has spent all his life connected with the law—through my father before I became a lawyer—I felt that the Select Committee was a judicial body that seemed wholly alien to my professional experience and nurturing. But the House was concerned with the standards it is entitled to expect from its Members. Decisions on the standards of conduct of hon. Members can never be handed over to an outside body. Therefore, the Select Committee, with all its apparent imperfections as a judicial body. was necessary and inevitable in this case.

I was interested in what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) said about a Select Committee being valuable when it is political but not very valuable when it is judicial. However, in the event I am absolutely certain in my own mind, starting off from a position of prejudice, that this Committee turned out to be as good, as efficient and as just as any investigatory body could have been in the circumstances and having the remit that it received.

As the House knows, the Committee produced a unanimous Report. I do not intend to advance the merits of its criticisms here today. I am not here as a prosecuting counsel. The criticisms are based on certain findings of fact, and whether all these facts and conclusions relating to the standards of conduct that we expect from hon. Members are justified is entirely a matter for the House as a whole. Our function was to consider and report. The House is the final arbiter. I make no comment on the merits of our criticism save to say that the facts on which the criticisms are founded are true and, in my view, were established fairly.

If the House looks at the Report it will find that no facts adverse to any particular hon. Member were found by us to be established except in accordance with the strictest regard for the rules of evidence. The House will have seen the depth and extent of our investigation. No one could suggest that there was any attempt to cover up. Happily, what emerged quite clearly was the fact that no Member of Parliament was corrupt, either in the popular or legal sense of that term. There was no question whatsoever of any hon. Member escaping the charge of corruption because of his membership of the House protecting him.

The matter of procedure has been referred to by a number of hon. Members, mainly my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield. I know that there has been concern that we should have followed the procedure suggested in the House by the Attorney-General last November. That procedure was that we should put the final findings to the Member who was being criticised and give him the opportunity to make further representations if he wished to do so.

Naturally, we considered this, but we came to the conclusion that justice and fairness did not demand such a course of action. The reason we came to that conclusion was that in our view all the accusations which resulted in criticism had been clearly and fully canvassed with each Member concerned, and nothing new had emerged or could emerge to justify a repeated rehearsal.

There is one exception and it is both important and unhappy. Apart from that exception, I believe that our decision was right. In my view, the exception is our criticism about lack of frankness by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) in the resignation letter that was read to the House in July 1972. It is true, as the right hon. Member for Fulham said, that a copy of Hansard, which is Appendix 65, and other documents about the main question concerning us at the time were sent to my right hon. Friend in advance of his examination. At the examination he was questioned extensively about his remuneration. Nevertheless, I agree with him and other right hon. and hon. Members that he should have been given an opportunity, which he was not given, of dealing specifically with the question of whether the letter, and particularly the phrase: For which post I took no remuneration was frank. He should have been given the opportunity to offer arguments or explanations, as he has today.

In my view, that was an unfortunate omission and I do not seek to absolve myself from my share of the responsibility for it. At the end of the examination my right hon. Friend was concerned that he should be told by the Committee if his veracity was challenged. The report in no way challenges the truth of his testimony.

The question that the House will have to ask in this respect is whether our omission led us to a mistaken finding and whether, in the light of what we have heard today from my right hon. Friend and other statements made in this respect—particularly from my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath)—the facts have changed, and the significance of the evidence as it stands is affected. I suggest to the House that if the facts do not clearly support the criticisms made, the House should, without hesitation, reject that criticism.

As to our criticism of my right hon. Friend's failure to declare an interest in the debates on 2nd and 22nd February 1967, the House will appreciate that we did not find a deliberate avoidance but merely a failure to judge what the House would have expected had the full facts been known. The House may think that this is not a very great criticism. Most of us have been guilty of misjudgment at some time, but, nevertheless, this is a critical rebuke. The House must judge, in the light of the facts and the submissions made by my right hon. Friend today, particularly bearing in mind the uncertain rules at the time on the declaration of interests, whether our conclusions were justified.

I listened with care to the address by the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. Roberts) today. I submit that the relevant findings of fact—and he told the House that there were one or two small inaccuracies—set out in paragraph 38 of the Report were fairly arrived at by the Committee and when examined are incontestable. Whether we were justified in reaching the conclusion that these actions fell below the standard which the House is entitled to expect of its Members is for the House to decide. We were engaged in the preliminary proceedings, but the House is the final arbiter.

The Committee, which was widely representative of this House, has produced a unanimous Report. Each Member responsibly accepted, I have no doubt with a heavy heart, the hard and melancholy task given to him or to her. We were fortunate in our Chairman and the Committee functioned well. If we have erred in any respect, the House must not hesitate to say so, but, with the exception I have mentioned, I do not think we have so erred.

7.52 p.m.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton)

I take part in this debate as one who is very confused and worried. I take the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), the Father of the House, that we should not consider this matter in a club-like atmosphere. There is a danger of so doing because we get to know our fellow Members on a personal and political basis very well indeed. We like people irrespective of the side of the House on which they sit. It is no secret that sometimes we like people on the opposite side of the House better than we like some of those who sit on our own side. Therefore, it is clear that this sort of atmosphere develops in the House, and it is important not to allow ourselves to be sucked into that type of situation. I am worried and concerned because I do not want the House to get itself into a situation were we call for the expulsion of Members for reasons that have nothing to do with the type of argument we are having today, but for other reasons.

There are hon. Members whose political views we detest, but it would be a bad day for this House if we were ever to reach a situation where people, because of their political views, were put under threat of expulsion. In that sense it was wrong in past years that Bradlaugh was expelled. We know that the people finally put him back in the House and the House had to accept the verdict of the people.

I do not go along with the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), because I do not think that that is the function of the House. I also disagree with the point made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House who mentioned sanctimonious mob rule. I agree with him that such rule is to be opposed, but we could hardly describe the House of Commons, as we have seen it today, discussing in deliberative terms a Select Committee Report and going into the matter in great detail, when every hon. Member who has spoken has clearly been worried about the outcome, as an exercise in sanctimonious mob rule. There may be some who are sanctimonious, but whether that can be described as mob rule is a different matter altogether.

Mr. Foot

I said that the House of Commons can deal with these matters with wisdom and intelligence and on occasions can deal with them as a sanctimonious mob. I believe that there have been occasions in the past when that has happened. However, I believe that the House today is capable of dealing with this matter with wisdom and intelligence. The House today by its conduct has shown that it can behave in that manner.

Mr. Heffer

Perhaps I misunderstood what my right hon. Friend was getting at. I was saying that there was no question of any mob involvement in this debate, whatever the outcome.

I am sure that what I am saying reflects the opinions of many other hon. Members. I have been genuinely torn in listening to this debate. I think it is important that somebody who has not made up his mind should say a few words to reflect the views of those who are in a similar position.

I was most impressed by the speech made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson). The Select Committee said that the statement made by the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) in his resignation letter was correct, but there was still one area that was not entirely revealed. Indeed, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman felt it unnecessary to reveal it. I do not say he was wrong in that view, but it leaves one with the suspicion that it was not revealed because, if the company had made money and if profits had accumulated from the project in Malta, there were possibilities to be considered at a later stage. That is a worrying aspect of the matter.

There is a measure of hypocrisy about this situation. The Committee said at paragraph 30: This is a situation which caused your Committee concern, but one which Mr. Maudling was quite entitled to point out does not apply to himself alone. The fact that he had international business interests was well known and did not attract adverse comment at the time. The House has never given any guidance on this matter. There are many hon. Members who have international business interests. I do not have any, and, indeed, I do not have any internal interests, but there are many hon. Members who are in that category. It is not wrong that they should have such interests. It is important that people should come to this House from every walk of life. It is also important that people, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and me, should come here straight from the shop floor or the pit to bring our experience to bear.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

There are not enough of us.

Mr. Heffer

I agree with my hon. Friend that there should be more of us.

It is also important that people in directorships and company managements should bring their expertise to the House. We certainly have a lot of lawyers on both sides of the House and we certainly know what they think. It is right that that should be done. But there is a certain measure of hypocrisy on this question, and one day the House will have to face up to it.

Nevertheless, it is important that we should always declare where we stand. If I speak in debates about trade unions, I think the House will know that I always say that I am a member of UCATT and that I am in the House with the backing and support of the construction workers' union. It is important that I should say this when I speak on housing or any other subject and that it is known that I have that interest. But does that mean that on every occasion one remembers to say this? If we are honest, we will admit that it is not always said by every hon. Member, and I am not certain that I have always said it, although hon. Members know where I stand.

I have said nothing of importance in the debate except to show my confusion. I think that that confusion is shared by many other Members, who also Share my worry and concern. However, I am coming increasingly to the point of view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) in a very telling speech to which I listened carefully. I am coming to that point of view not because I think that we have to be seen to be taking some action. One does not take action simply because the Press says that one should take action. I do not give a damn whether the Press thinks that we should take action. We should take action only if it is right. That is the important thing and that is what we have to decide as Members, not whether the Press will crucify us if we do not take action.

I have listened and will continue to listen carefully to the debate. I am very impressed with the speech made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery and the point of view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone.

8.3 p.m.

Mr. Michael Alison (Barkston Ash)

I wish to concentrate my few words solely on the case of John Cordle. I had the privilege and pain of spending a good deal of time with John Cordle last week and discussing with him anxiously, even agonisingly, what course of action he should properly take in the light of the Select Committee's findings in his case and as a result of the state of feeling about these matters among hon. Members in all parts of the House.

In the end, as the House well knows, John Cordle decided to resign, but I do not think that it is irrelevant to refer to his case. He may be a parliamentary ghost, but his case is relevant to our banquet today. I deeply regret the necessity for John Cordle's resignation. It goes without saying that it was a personal tragedy for himself and his family, but it goes wider than that. His resignation is a profound loss to his constituency, about which I hope to say something in my concluding remarks.

Above all, his going and the manner of it represents a setback and a disservice to this House and to its best interests. We should not be too complacent about the poignant and, I think, very creditable passage in Mr. Cordle's resignation statement in which he explicitly bows to the judgment of the Select Committee and, for the sake of avoiding division and acrimony, goes further and actually bows out of the House. We should instead reflect with some misgiving on the almost intolerable position in which he found himself.

When a Select Committee of the distinction and gravity of this Committee reaches the unanimous conclusion that an hon. Member is in contempt of the House, and when that hon. Member is perhaps not universally popular or one of the great figures or personalities of the House, and, further, when that hon. Member's reputation is tarnished in the eyes of many of his colleagues by his association with John Poulson, I question whether it necessarily follows that the end product of this—a dignified, if painful, resignation—necessarily represents a fair, just or honourable conclusion in the matter. In my view it does not.

I would certainly assent to the proposition that John Cordle's profound error of judgment was in not playing safe and declaring an interest in the famous Adjournment debate of 1964. But, for the rest, is it not relevant to recall, as we think of his painful resignation, first, that the events with which we are concerned and with which the Select Committee was concerned in his case happened as long ago as 1964, 13 years ago, when he had been in the House for only three years and it is specifically judged in the Select Committee Report to be an isolated incident rather than part of a pattern of conduct"? Secondly, should we not bear in mind that the practice relating to the declaration of Members' interests was much less clearly specified than it is today, as the Select Committee fairly comments in its Report? It was the very uncertainty and divergence of opinion in this matter in the earlier days that led to the more specific and rigorous formula to which hon. Members agreed in 1974 and 1975. But it is not reasonable to judge yesterday by the standards of today. That, surely, is the most naive and misleading basis on which to adopt superior moral attitudes, although it is very easy and tempting for us to do so.

Thirdly, in the Select Committee's inquiry much turned on the directness or indirectness of John Cordle's pecuniary interest in the Gambia, and that in turn depended a great deal on the nature of the payment that he received: for example, whether it was as expenses or as a retainer. But can anyone who has studied the evidence be certain that if the full judicial processes of a court of law had been followed, with a proper indictment and specific charges, the outcome would necessarily have been a foregone conclusion against Mr. Cordle on this specific point of direct or indirect pecuniary interest in the Gambia? I very much doubt it.

Of course, the Select Committee was not and is not a court of law. Some would argue that that is one of its strengths rather than its weakness, but I believe that in the context of the case of John Cordle, who was not very well known in the House and not universally liked and who associated openly with John Poulson, though with absolutely no suggestion of corruption—I was very pleased that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas) stressed that point—the Select Committee procedure has proved a disaster. Whereas in a court of law a judge sums up on the basis of evidence clearly, deliberately and painstakingly examined and argued by the prosecution and defence counsel, in this case the Select Committee was a judge and inquisitor rolled into one. The real difficulty is that the jury is this House.

It is not as though the jury of the House is expected to reach a verdict. The House is expected to respond to a verdict already reached. This is the profoundly damaging impact of the case. This is where the extremely pertinent point made by the Leader of the House about our real danger here being of a kind of polite parliamentary lynch law reaches reality, for we are expected to respond to a conclusion reached.

In many respects, it becomes closely analogous, if not to lynch law, to some of the practices followed in the medieval witch-hunts in which, once there was the slightest suspicion or even the slightest sign of the practice of witchcraft, the victim, he or she—usually she—was condemned already. It was simply a question of whether she admitted it under torture or took the line of least resistance and admitted it openly. Hanging, or, in that particular case, burning, inevitably followed. What other course could John Cordle take? The verdict having been reached, himself not being a particularly well-established Member, and the verdict already evoking in advance of this debate the mob response of motions on the Order Paper calling for his expulsion, what conceivable alternative could John Cordle risk taking other than resignation?

I believe that it was forced upon him by the process and outcome of the Select Committee. In no sense do I question the quality and calibre of the Select Committee and its deliberations. They were admirable, and I have the fullest confidence in them and in the right hon. and hon. Members of which the Committee was composed. But the very machinery of reaching a verdict and asking the House to respond to it takes people in John Cordle's position to the point where they are branded as witches before being proven in any judicial sense guilty of the weaknesses, sins or crimes for which they must be burned.

Because he was threatened with expulsion in advance of any hearing of his case, because he had been found guilty by the verdict of the Select Committee, it was inescapable that John Cordle would have to resign. I believe that it is a tragedy.

Now, because of the innumerable sour and unpleasant things which have been said about John Cordle in his day, I wish, with his permission, to leave the House with a brief reference to three outstanding qualities which he has shown he possessed. In that way, I believe, we can slightly redeem the damage we have done to our ex-colleague.

John Cordle was an incomparable constituency Member. I say that without hesitation. Any Member who could have gone through the public relations and media assassination which John Cordle endured over many years as a Member of the House and yet repeatedly, unequivocally and universally be readopted with acclaim and enthusiasm by his association and his constituents must have qualities as a constituency Member which very few of us could emulate.

Second, John Cordle had the distinction of starting in his constituency the first of the Helsinki review committees. He took a great deal of trouble to argue publicly both in the Council of Europe and in correspondence with the Soviet Embassy the case of Mr. Sharansky. It does much credit both to his constituency and to John Cordle himself that they were the first actively in the field, certainly in the Conservative Party.

Finally, I leave tie House with a brief reference to a remarkable initiative which John Cordle took in the Council of Europe, to which he was a delegate until his resignation, arising out of a tragedy—or near-tragedy—which happened to his son Paul, who was terribly injured in a motor accident in France. As a result of the initiative which John Cordle took in the Council of Europe, and of the drive, imagination and enthusiasm which he showed, against the background of the very serious injury which befell his son, he was able to launch a scheme which is now coming to be known as the international medical credit card.

This card is a remarkable document, in some ways not unlike the credit cards which many of us carry, issued by American Express and other such organisations. In one corner the card must show the photograph of the holder, and it must give his name, address, social security number and nearest of kin, as well as details such as blood group, epileptic or diabetic condition and so on, together with the stated permission of the holder for organ transplant in the event of his death.

I believe that this medical credit card, which, I understand, may now be adopted by the member nations of the Council of Europe, is likely to provide the distinct possibility of survival to people who are injured in motor or other accidents on the Continent or in Britain, wherever the holder goes with his card. No payment will be necessary for treatment, and immediate knowledge will be forthcoming as to the nature of his physique, background and so on.

I believe that the card is likely in due course to be called the Cordle card. I very much hope that it will. I believe that it will lead to the saving of a great many lives.

Why on earth have we forced a man who made a bad mistake but a man with qualities of that kind—

Mr. Arthur Lewis (Newham, North-West)

I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I underwrite every word he has said, and I wish to say that I helped John Cordle on that scheme in the Council of Europe. May I add that I was here when another Member was, in my view, shabbily treated but, thank God, he has now a very good name. I refer to John Profumo.

Mr. Alison

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for that helpful contribution. He corroborates what I said.

I believe that the Cordle card will be something of a household term in days to come. John Cordle had a lot to contribute both to and through the House, although, as I say, he may not have been very well known and liked. But why on earth, for a misdemeanour—which was serious—should he by the processes of this Select Committee have been hounded, as I believe he was, as a result of inescapable pressures into resignation? I believe that it is a tragedy.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Max Madden (Sowerby)

I trust that the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) will forgive me if I do not follow the line of his speech. It is my wish to comment upon the pungent speeches made by my hon. Friends the Members for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) and for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson), but I wish at the outset, as a member of the Select Committee, to pay my tribute to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), who, in my view, performed a service to the House by his speech today.

As other hon. Members have done, I have looked back on the debates which have taken place over the years on the conduct of Members. I think that they have alwaye been occasions for soul searching, for regret and for sadness. They have also been occasions for frequent allegations against the form of inquiry which was undertaken and the conduct of the inquiry and for argument about the action which should result from those inquiries.

There have also been ringing declarations about the democratic importance of the House of Commons, made with great eloquence by such diverse political figures as Attlee, Morrison, Churchill and the present Lord Hailsham. There have been dire warnings about the House of Commons assuming powers which it ought not to assume, and warnings against this place becoming a sort of golf club disciplinary committee.

In 1949, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot), then the Member for Plymouth, Devonport, quoted these words in the House: O, that in England there might be A duty on hypocrisy, A tax on humbug, an excise On solemn plausibilities."—[Official Report, 3rd February 1949; Vol. 460, c. 1895.] I am glad to see that at least in this argument my right hon. Friend is consistent, because he is saying today exactly what he was saying in 1949.

I believe, however, that we must reconcile proper vigilance with the protection of the democratic rights and freedoms of Members, with the rights and freedoms of those whom we seek to represent. The House of Commons cannot shirk that responsibility tonight. The Report of the Select Committee has come about after a series of unforeseen happenings. The corrupt Poulson empire was uncovered by one man's bankruptcy. That bankruptcy exposed all sorts of lieutenants and hirelings. In addition, it revealed disturbing matters about Members of Parliament.

If we are to have a complete understanding of the widespread concern which exists, we must for a moment consider why Poulson recruited Members of Parliament and others, particularly in local government. His empire was created essentially to overcome the rules which bound him as a professional architect. As such, he could not tout for business. He was debarred from advertising for work. So he had the clever notion of creating several companies to push his business interests and to do things which he himself was debarred from doing.

That cocoon of companies having been established, Poulson's task then was to get on the inside track. He saw that a good way of doing this, of being ahead of the competition, was to hire politicians at national and local level. He paid them and, in my view, used them. They were there to influence and advance his interests. They were hired to open doors he could not hope to open, to see people he could not hope to see and did not know, to write to people he did no know, to go to places and to mingle with the influential—and it paid off handsomely.

Poulson was on the recommended list of architects in Malta and was able to get his back fees paid at a later date. It is recorded in Appendix 81 of the Report of the Select Committee that the Crown Agents said: Poulson Associates had previously been pushed at us by an MP twice they have used an MP in an attempt to further their business Poulson was able to tell the corrupt Maltese, Mr. Abela, in August 1966—and this letter is in the appendices: I must say I admire the way in which you handle the politicians; you do it exactly the same way as I do in this country. For Poulson, the arrogant emperor of the largest architectural empire in Europe, riding high from the middle 1950s, hon. Members were an extension of his business, to be rewarded, coaxed, rebuked, and even commanded. Although the rewards were substantial, then and now, they were, of course, chicken feed to Poulson judged against the value of the contracts that he was chasing. The stakes were high and he was, therefore, none too fussy about his actions or his methods and was prepared to use his hon. Members quite blatantly.

If the Report is not to become just a footnote in history and if we are not prepared to face similar disturbing events in years to come, further positive action must be taken to protect the House from those seeking to influence it and to use hon. Members for their own commercial interest. How many other Poulsons are there today or will there be in years to come?

Mrs. Millie Miller (Ilford, North)

My hon. Friend has talked about the view of many of us, especially those who have newly entered the House. The point that my hon. Friend has just made is vital. One of the most frightening and worrying experiences that I have had in the House was connected not with this case but with another matter with which my hon. Friend is familiar. It was connected with last year's débâcle about Bristol Channel Ship Repairers Ltd. The House was remiss in not taking the kind of action in respect of that matter that it is taking tonight. The warning that my hon. Friend has just given should be heeded by all of us who are concerned about the future of democracy in the House.

Mr. Madden

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend and I shall refer to these matters later. In my view—and I know, as has been said tonight, that it is a minority view—as long as hon. Members are allowed to hold pecuniary interests, including regular employment ouside the House, there will always be the possibility of a conflict of interests. That potential conflict of interests will always exist until hon. Members are legally required not to hold such interests.

However, in advance of such reforms, positive action must be taken, because more and more commercial interests and public relations firms acting for commercial clients are attempting to influence hon. Members. This is a modern trend that has to be countered if the House is to remain a free and democratic institution.

I should like to draw the attention of the House to certain areas of anxiety. Initially, we need to strengthen the register of hon. Members' interests. It is not published, but it is available for any hon. Member who cares to inspect it in the Clerk's Office. A cursory inspection of the register now shows that 195 hon. Members hold a total of 444 directorships. Some 78 hon. Members, including some of those 195, hold 130 parliamentary consultancies. When the register was established, I believed that it would be a modest step to enable members of the public to know the interests held by hon. Members. There is an urgent need to toughen up the requirements and certainly to register shareholdings at a lower limit than now applies. It is legitimate for hon. Members not to reveal substantial shareholdings on the register as currently constituted.

There was one instance in which an hon. Member had not registered, legitimately, some 12,000 shares in a particular company which was at the heart of a Private Member's Bill that the House discussed some time ago. That non-declaration was fully in line with the requirements of the register. While that position persists, it is wholly unsatisfactory.

Mr. Whitehead

Is my hon. Friend aware that he is totally understating the case, because the register is now 15 months old and the Select Committee has said that it cannot recommend that a further register should be drawn up, because one right hon. Member will not bring forward an entry?

Mr. Madden

My hon. Friend is half right. Although the register is not being published, it is available to hon. Members and is being regularly revised. All the revisions, additions and deductions are recorded in the register.

I should also like to call the attention of the House to the urgent need for a register of lobbyists. Lobbyists and representatives of public relations firms, some of them most unsavoury, are seeking to lobby hon. Members on an increasing scale. I support the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mrs. Miller). I should like to refer to the activities of just one of these firms over the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill. Those activities became, in the view of many hon. Members, objectionable and totally unacceptable.

We should know who seeks to lobby the House and the organisations that they represent. Such people should also be stopped from using the House as an extension of their offices and there must be an agreed code of conduct between the House and recognised professional public relations organisations.

It is also essential that we should have a register of Lobby journalists. It is believed that some Lobby journalists have taken on consultancies for industrial companies and are paid regular retainers. In return they give such firms any information that comes their way about the firms' spheres of activity or interests. There are others who have become parliamentary linkmen with public relations firms and parliamentary consultancies, again for payment. All this is conducted in great secrecy and without the journalists revealing the clients for whom they work.

There is anxiety about whether such journalists are supplying information that is available to only them by virtue of their privileged position in the House, such as the receipt of confidential final revises, statements and information obtained in confidential briefings. I am glad that such matters will be raised and discussed by the parliamentary Lobby and I understand that a motion on the matter will be discussed at a parliamentary Lobby meeting tomorrow night.

We also need to address ourselves to the position of civil servants who join private industry, and there have been recent examples of that. Civil servants of under-secretary rank and above are required to secure agreement before accepting such offers.

Mr. Cormack

Many of the things that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned are important, and some reprehensible, but what relevance have they to the issues that we are now discussing?

Mr. Madden

They have considerable relevance, because we must be concerned about all the factors and all the people affecting the free functioning of this democratic institution. The matter, therefore, involves hon. Members, lobbyists, Lobby journalists and civil servants. The procedures and practices affecting the possibility of civil servants joining private industry need to be regularised as a matter of urgency.

Mr. Skinner

Is not my hon. Friend saying that 195 hon. Members with 400 directorships among them will take part in the deliberations and voting tonight and that this will affect the way they vote?

Mr. Madden

As long as hon. Members have pecuniary interests, whether in private companies or elsewhere, it is inevitable that they will pose the potential conflict of interests that I have outlined, and that will tend to limit the freedom and independence of hon. Members.

The people to whom I was referring often have immense and sophisticated resources and are unscrupulous and untiring in their activites in trying to influence hon. Members. They cannot be beaten by unreal or unworldly beliefs and support for weak and ineffective sanctions. That is not an adequate defence.

We have to take action to regulate what happens here and to erect adequate and proper safeguards against the influence peddlers. We have to be vigilant and ensure that this place is determined in protecting its rights and freedoms and, most important, the rights and freedoms of those we serve. They send us here in the expectation that we shall serve their interests and not the interests of others who may see fit to pay hon. Members for the work they perform on their behalf.

Mr. Fairbairn

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) suggested that there were hon. Members who may vote not on a proper basis but on a corrupt or influenced basis. That was a most unfortunate remark in the context of this debate, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to withdraw it.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman

Hear, hear. What about the hon. Gentleman's brother?

Mr. Speaker

Order. This is a very serious debate that has been conducted at a high standard. I hope that we can keep it that way.

Mr. Skinner

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. My brother was made bankrupt partly by this Government and principally by the Opposition. He had a £600 car dragged away. Yet it is suggested that a member of Lloyds', with all these other interests, should get away scot-free. That is what I am talking about.

8.32 p.m.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith (Hertfordshire, East)

I shall follow your exhortation, Mr. Speaker, and within my limitations, contribute a serious speech in this important debate.

As I shall be making certain critical comments about the methods and procedures of the Select Committee, I make clear at the outset that any faults derive largely from the system that the House has inherited. I make no personal criticism of the members of the Committee or its distinguished Chairman. They are highly respected right hon. and hon. Members, some of whom have extensive experience. They were faced with a task that was arduous arid difficult and must have been unwelcome and distasteful. If there are faults to be found with the Report, and, consequently, if the right course is for the House to dissent from the Lord President's motion, they are faults that are basically inherent in the system and not in the desire or intent of the Committee.

I have never been very happy with the system of inquisitorial procedure by Committees of the House. My colleagues on the Committee of Privileges, especially those who have served on it for some years, will know that I have serious doubt about the efficacy of these Committees as tribunals of fact.

I should like to put a basic proposition to the House. Surely in any procedures, particularly if they follow the inquisitorial method which is alien to British forensic procedure, there should be compliance with the rules of natural justice. These are rules on the application of which our courts insist in all that farrago of procedures undertaken in what is known as administrative law—an increasingly important element of twentieth century Britain. The House will always support the courts in that insistence in the context of administrative law. If these rules of natural justice are right, appropriate and essential for proceedings outside the House, who can say that they are not equally right, essential and appropriate for proceedings within it?

If the concept of natural justice is accepted, we must do two things. First, we must identify the relevant rules and, secondly, we must consider whether there has been total or sufficient compliance with them in these proceedings. The principle of natural justice is basically enshrined in what lawyers call the"audi alterant parte"rule—the duty to hear the other side of the case. That rule sets out the minimum standards of fairness in adjudication by all non-judicial bodies.

The rule is not peculiar to this country. It is recognised in countries which normally follow inquisitorial procedures and is conformed to by international procedures, although on the Continent they call it by a different Latin name. In fact, it is even older than the common law or the civil law. An eighteenth century judge—Mr. Justice Fortescue—in a celebrated judgment traced it back to Genesis. He said: even God himself did not pass sentence upon Adam before he was called upon to make his defence. The rules of justice that we should follow comprise, in my view, four elements. The first element is the right to be heard either in person or by a legal representative. The second element is adequate opportunity for the person to know the case that he has to meet and an adequate opportunity for answering it and putting his own case. The third element is that there should be particulars before the hearing of any allegations to be made and opportunity for appropriate discovery of documents so that answers can be considered and prepared. The fourth element, and not the least important, is highly relevant in this context—namely, an opportunity for the party or his representatives to address the tribunal on its provisional conclusions after the evidence is recorded but before they are definitively adopted in a report, both as to the validity of those conclusions and in mitigation if that should arise.

It is obvious that our procedures in this House are such as to make full compliance with those principles extremely difficult. The first rule, the right to appear, presents no difficulty. It is enunciated in "Erskine May" at page 161 of the current edition and it was followed in this case. However, full compliance with the other requisites is equally important, and it is here that the difficulty arises. There is no sufficient indication or particularisation of the matters to be raised or the case to be met. This was put quite clearly by the Attorney-General on 1st November 1976, when he said: It is not an inquiry such as is heard in court, where there are charges or pleadings from the very beginning, one knows precisely what material is to be put forward, and cross-examination by a number of people may be permitted."—[Official Report, 1st November 1976; Vol. 9187, c. 1041.] The point was made clearly by the eminent counsel—a former colleague of ours—who appeared for Mr. Cordle in these proceedings. At pages 98 and 99 of the Report he states: It is extraordinarily difficult for counsel to deal with a matter where there is no indictment and no specific charge. One can guess a little from the questions what is in the Committee's mind but it is a little bit like a game of chess where one does not see one's opponent's pieces". Those are the difficulties that face this type of procedure. It is because of these difficulties that the fourth rule is most important. Indeed, it was specifically stressed by the Attorney-General on 1st November. I need not repeat his words as they have already been quoted by the Lord President.

The right to make submissions on the provisional conclusions—what the Attorney—General described as "tentative conclusions"—was expressly asked for by Sir John Foster on behalf of Mr. Cordle at pages 100 and 101 of the Report. It was not expressly asked for by the other two Members. They may well have thought that it was not necessary to ask for it in view of the Attorney-General's clear statement. In any case, they were not legally represented. As the House knows, that opportunity was not accorded to them.

The Committee has sought to deal with that matter in paragraph 4 of its Report, where it states: In the event, no new evidence or accusation emerged that was not fully described and put to the Members concerned during their evidence, and Your Committee decided that no useful purpose would have been served by inviting them to appear again before them. I make two observations on that passage. The first consideration is that in one of these cases—that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling)—it is not true. One of the main criticisms was not fully described or put to him at all. The second consideration is a general one. The Committee, to adopt the polite language that lawyers use in the Court of Appeal when they suggest that a judge of first instance is wrong in his law, misdirected itself as to the purpose of the further opportunity. The opportunity to make these submissions is not intended to be confined to or, indeed, primarily concerned with, new evidence or accusations. It is an opportunity to show cause why the provisional or tentative conclusions of the Committee deriving from evidence by that time on record are, in the submission of the Member, wrong, unfair, unsupported or insufficiently supported by evidence, or whatever his case may be.

Mr. David Walder (Clitheroe)

I am a little mystified. My right hon. and learned Friend has so far talked of natural justice and drawn parallels with our courts. I no longer practise in the courts, but I cannot remember an occasion when a judge and jury summoned someone and said "We are thinking of finding you guilty. Have you any views on the subject?"

Sir D. Walker-Smith

In view of my hon. Friend's intervention, he need hardly have reminded the House that it is some time since he practised in his profession. The rules of natural justice, if he had been listening with his customary attention, are not directed to the courts, because the procedures there are defined. The rules of natural justice are concerned with what is known as administrative law. That is why it is a parallel here. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for enabling me to make the position clear.

Mr. Madden

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Sir D. Walker-Smith

Yes, but this must be the last time, because of the clock.

Mr. Madden

In listening to the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell), one would hardly suspect that the Select Committee was stuffed full of lawyers. But, putting that on one side, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would agree that the alternative to a Select Committee would be a tribunal of inquiry under the 1921 Act, which I and a number of other hon. Members have advocated all the way through, and I still do? Did he agree with us that such an inquiry should have been established? Did he raise his voice in that cause?

Sir D. Walker-Smith

No. The Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 lays down a procedure which on the whole is not to be commended. I have knowledge of many such inquiries. I do not think that they comply in all respects with the rules of natural justice as I have been defining them. I know and I am glad that there were lawyers on the Committee, but lawyers cannot do any better than the circumstances and procedures allow them to do. I have quite a lot of thoughts on how to improve these procedures, but if I give them all to the House tonight there will be no time for any other speeches and I should not be exactly popular with my colleagues.

To return to the precise subject matter with which we are concerned, this basic and essential opportunity was not given in this instance for reasons which, I am sure, were sincere and given in absolute good faith by the Committee with a belief in its correctness. Nevertheless, they were based on a misunderstanding of the purpose of such further opportunity. Consequently, the validity of the conclusions cannot be said to have been established in a way sufficiently complying with the requirements of natural justice.

The result is that nowhere in the voluminous transcript do we get a proper representation of the cases of these hon. Members put in a form that would correspond to a final speech made on their behalf in a court A law analysing the evidence and making clear submissions as to what their cases were. If the implication of paragraph 4 of the Report is that this deficiency is rectified by the opportunity to make statements in this debate, I am afraid that I cannot accept it.

The House as a whole cannot be in a stronger position than its Committee. If the Report is deficient, the judgment of the House rests on no firm foundation. I cannot accept that in the context of compliance with the rules of natural justice an opportunity for a brief statement, in a parliamentary, as distinct from a juridicial, context—made to hon. Members who have had a Report not containing a sufficient and considered statement of their case is enough. Clearly, it is not.

I come to the specific point about my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet. In paragraphs 30 to 33 the Committee sets out the aspects causing concern. There were two main matters, although one or two others were mentioned. The resignation letter is the concern of paragraph 33. It is one of the two principal issues. More than 300 questions were put to my right hon. Friend on all sorts of matters but not a single one related to that. Clearly, if it was to be a feature of the Report, natural justice required that a further opportunity be given to him not only for the reasons adumbrated by the Attorney-General but so that he could make his specific observations about that particular matter.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr.Thomas), with characteristic fairness, accepts that that was a mistake by the Committee. The fair and logical inference is that the House should content itself with taking note of the Report. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]. It is the logical inference. For these reasons, I submit that the Report as drafted should not be approved.

I end with a short word about penalties. We have mentioned expulsion and suspension. Where an hon. Member is convicted in the courts by the verdict of the jury after full judicial proceedings have taken place, these penalties are appropriate. An imprisoned hon. Member could not in any event fulfil his duties in the House or in his constituency. However, in all other circumstances the House should be wary of extreme measures. Parliament is not a club in which Members sit because they are agreeable to their fellow Members. They sit here by reason of the will and suffrage of their constituents. The House must be careful about pre-empting their choice or usurping their function. The sovereignty of Parliament is, indeed, a great principle, but it must not be exercised at the expense of the sovereignty of the people. Both expulsion and suspension impose a penalty not only on a Member but on his constituents. The penalty of expulsion is a by-election. The penalty of suspension is an interregnum with no full provision for the handling of constituents' problems, of Questions and supplementary questions. Adjournment debates and so on. We would be asking the constituencies to dismantle the equipment for the representation of its views and the defence of its interests.

Mr. William Hamilton

rose—

Sir D. Walker-Smith

I have given way twice. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] The hon. Member has had his turn.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I said a few moments ago that we have had a high level of debate. I hope that it will continue.

Sir D. Walker-Smith

I have already given way more than once. Before you resumed the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I said that I did not think that I should give away again owing to the passage of time.

Mr. William Hamilton

The right hon. and learned Gentleman voted for expulsion in 1947.

Sir D. Walker-Smith

I agree that one learns a lot in the passage of time. Some hon. Members who are relatively new to the House who might vote mistakenly tonight will no doubt see wisdom if they are fortunate enough to remain in the House for another 30 years.

Mr. Foot

As one who did not vote for expulsion in 1947 and who will certainly not be voting for expulsion now, may I ask whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman could not conclude his speech also with a declaration of interest and indicate to the House that he had supported the establishment of the Committee that he has criticised so strongly?

Sir D. Walker-Smith

Yes, I think that it was right to set up the Committee, and I have paid tribute to its work. I cannot say that I can support the right hon. Gentleman's motion to agree with its conclusions. I have said—I think it is the fact—that the Committee was faced with very great and inherent difficulties in the task that it had to perform. It is more difficult, I agree, to say what procedures should satisfactorily be followed. It is for the House to consider that in a cool and analytical mood.

Therefore, that is the position as I see it. If the House does not adopt the motion unamended, clearly no question of penalties arises. If it should adopt it unamended, then, by reason of the various considerations obtaining, in my view the House should proceed no further.

I end as I began. If the decision of the House be not to adopt the motion, it would not constitute and should not be construed as in any way a reflection on the Committee or its Chairman. Whatever the result of the motion, the House should be—and I am sure that it is—grateful to the Committee for its conscientious labours and for its unsought and no doubt unwelcome task.

However, the difficulties of our procedures and the drawbacks of the system remain and call for analysis and appraisal with a view to their improvement and to ensuring a clear and total compliance with the principles of natural justice. It is regard for those principles that should govern the decision of the House tonight.

Mr. William Hamilton

Absolute humbug.

8.52 p.m.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon (York)

I do not wish to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) in his argument, save perhaps to say that his speech was the kind that brings lawyers into disrepute.

What I want to try to persuade hon. Members who have not made up their minds is that we should support the motion of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House but that we should go no further. I could make that argument on the basis of compassion. I do not take the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) that at a time such as this people in the position of the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) and my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. Roberts) should not have brought into the balance the good that they have done in the past and that we should overlook that in view of the enormity of the offence that they have committed. I say that in time of trouble we all have a right to call to our aid the good that we have done. Both of the men concerned have done good in this House and to this country.

The right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet has a reputation which will outweigh that which is condemned in the Report and which, I have no doubt, will stay with him for the rest of his life. He is entitled to bring into account what he did as Home Secretary, as Foreign Secretary and as Deputy-Leader of the Conservative Party, and almost Prime Minister. That has to be weighed in the balance too.

What is to be weighed in the balance with my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton is perhaps not as important. However, I remember that when I first became a Member of the House I stayed for 12 months in a hotel in which a number of hon. Members lived. One of them was my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton. I got to know him well in those circumstances. There are things about him for which I have great affection, and I still have great liking for him.

Both men have things in their past which I regret and which in some senses I condemn. My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton conducts an association with Fascist Governments which I think is totally incompatible with membership of the Labour Party. I think that that, too, is a matter which ought to be borne in mind in making a judgment. The way in which the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet has conducted his financial affairs over the past few years is also something that ought to be borne in mind in making a judgment.

However, all those. questions are beside the point. I could make the case for not proceeding further on a rather more general point, and that is the question that was asked, I thought movingly, and yet a little pathetically, by my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton when he said "What are the standards by which we are to be judged?"

I take the point very seriously. The Committee says in paragraph 5 of its Report that it had to ask itself: "Where no rules were laid down by the House at the time, what rule should it apply in relation to the conduct that it found in these cases?" My right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart) said that the Committee had the common sense to ask whether the House would have condemned these Members at that time for the conduct that we are here describing.

That is not enough. This is not a club. This is not simply a blackballing exercise. If we follow the amendment suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), we shall put out of this House men who were elected by their constituencies to come here and represent them. That is a serious matter, and before we take that step we have to be sure that what they did was not only an offence, but was known by them to be an offence when they did it, and that they did it consciously knowing that to be so. It is not a matter of negligence, and it is not a matter of misunderstanding or confusion. We have to he sure that they knew that they were committing an offence, and yet went ahead and committed it.

What is it that they are alleged to have done? The right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet is alleged to have failed to disclose in debates on Malta, when he was the Opposition Front Bench spokesman, that he had an interest in the companies. The right hon. Gentleman has called in aid, and I think tellingly, the opinion of Mr. Speaker King. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central does not think much of Mr. Speaker King. Perhaps he is right, but if the right hon. Gentleman had gone to Mr. Speaker King before that debate and had been given the opinion that he received later, and if he had then spoken in the debate without saying anything about his connection with the company, could anybody have said that he was wrong? If Mr. Speaker King could take that view, is it not a little difficult to say that in the right hon. Gentleman's mind there could not be at any rate an element of doubt? If the right hon. Gentleman says that he did not have any doubt and that he thought he was all right, is it not possible to say that at that time, in that way, he was not guilty of an offence?

The second thing that is held against the right hon. Gentleman is that in the so-called resignation letter he was not as frank as he could have been. I do not think that he was as frank as he might have been with the Committee about the amount of payment that he received. I think that the suggestion that he was working for Mr. Poulson as the chairman of an international company because he thought it was an export company working in the interests of this country shows a degree of magnanimity that the right hon. Gentleman cannot even begin to claim.

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman knew that his wife's favourite charity would get a substantial amount of money—the exact amount that his predecessor had been paid in salary. A minute was put into the record of the company at the time when the right hon. Gentleman was appointed that his wife's favourite charity would get this money.

The right hon. Gentleman was paid a substantial sum, and he knows it, because he wrote a letter to Mr. Poulson saying I am surprised at the colossal amount that I am getting. Is it worth it?" Surely that is no less vulnerable to criticism than the letter of the poor, lamented Mr. Cordle who was forced by his Opposition Front Bench to get out of the House before we had to consider the question of the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet. I do not think that that casts any kind of credit upon the right hon. Gentleman, but what I ask myself is whether it is an offence within the rules of the House. I am bound to say that I find it difficult to say that it is.

The former Prime Minister, to whom the letter was addressed, said that in his view there was a clear reason why the words were put in as they were. The words are clearly restricted. The right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet said, in effect, "I was the chairman of an export company, for which I received no remuneration". As the Committee says, that is true, but it is not true that he did not receive indirect remuneration, and that was not disclosed. The right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) made the point today in the House that he put those words in because of the Liberal motion. That may be true. None of us in the House can be absolutely sure. We cannot convict on the basis of doubt. The right hon. Gentleman is entitled to the benefit of that doubt. I do not think that the Committee can therefore say that he has acted in such a way that he has to be expelled or suspended.

Mr. Frank Hooley (Sheffield, Heeley)

If I understand the argument of my hon. Friend correctly, there is no explicit rule and no known offence that either of the Members concerned has committed. Does he not agree, however, that it is a longstanding, well-established convention and custom of the House to declare an interest? Whether this is enshrined in an order, a rule or regulation or whatever, it is an established principle of the way in which we conduct our affairs. The gravamen of the charge is that that was not observed in these cases.

Mr. Lyon

I understand the full force of that point. I am sorry that I gave way, because I am coming to precisely this argument. This is the burden of what I have to say.

What is said against my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton is that he did not disclose to George Brown that he was connected commercially with Mr. Poulson when he wrote the letter. My right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham said something about conversations. There were not conversations. That was a letter, and my hon. Friend actually wrote the letter, in the way in which many of us do when a Minister writes to one and says that he is appointing people to a particular board and he wants to know whether there is anybody in one's constituency who would be helpful as a nominee.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

It has not happened to me.

Mr. Lyon

I do not find it surprising that my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton should have nominated a man who at that time, as he says, was pristine. He keeps on putting the point—no doubt it seems funny to the rest of us—that the man was actually a freeman of the borough of Pontefract, or, at any rate, a man with considerable authority and substance in the area. [Interruption.] I accept that he was in his pay. When my hon. Friend made that recommendation, it was, after all, in respect of a man who might very well have been considered for membership of the Yorkshire Economic Planning Board. In those circumstances it was not in itself such a venal thing as some hon. Gentlemen might suggest.

Of course, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) says, all this could have been avoided, this discussion could have been avoided, if each Member had said on every occasion "But I have a commercial interest." But is the House concerned with the difference between someone saying "I have a commercial interest" and what these Members actually did? That is not what my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden), a member of the Committee who made the decisions, is concerned about. He is not concerned that the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet should have stood at the Dispatch Box and said at the beginning of the Malta debate "Of course I have a commercial interest in his matter" and then gone on with the rest of the argument. If he had done that he would have been cleared of that charge, but he would have done everything else that is mentioned in the Report. He would have taken the £5,000 for his wife's favourite charity, as is said in the Report. He would have written the letter to Poulson, as is said in the Report. If Mr. Cordle had risen in the Gambia debate and made the same kind of disclosure he would have asked Mr. Poulson for a little more, and it would still have stank in our nostrils.

We must recognise that the concern of most of us is not that these Members did not make a disclosure by that sort of artificial form of words but that they were involved in a situation in which they were using their positions as Members of Parliament to boost their financial position. That is what is unacceptable to most of us.

Mr. Maudling

Is there anything wrong in doing a job of work when the salary that might have been received goes to charity?

Mr. Lyon

If the right hon. Gentleman does not know the answer to that question, as a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, he is more naive than I thought. He would never have been appointed to the Poulson board unless he had been in the position that he was. That is the case with my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton. It is not that they have to disclose; it is that we came into this House to represent our constituents. What stinks in our nostrils is that some people came into the House not only to represent their constituents but to use the fact that they were Members of Parliament to further their own ends. That is what is wrong and that is what ought to be stopped. That will not be stopped by accepting the amendments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall or of my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central. What we would be doing in that event would be to crush butterflies on a wheel.

The basis of our criticism and concern should be that hon. Members are put into this position of having a dual loyalty. There should never have been any question of Mr. Poulson dictating a letter to my hon. Friend. There should never have been any question of the right hon. Gentleman going to Malta and saying to the Maltese "There is a friend of mine, a company, which wants to build a hospital. By the way, I am the Opposition's spokesman on defence, and we know that your interests are being looked after." That dubiety should never have been there. We cannot get rid of it by condemning these mortals for having gone a little further than a good many other hon. Members. What we should do is to get rid of the dual loyalty, and the only way we shall do that is by abolishing a system which allows the representation of commercial interests in the House.

I see a clear difference between being recruited because a person is a Member of Parliament, to further an employer's aims, and being in business before entering the House and continuing in that business afterwards. If it were to be said that in saying that, as a lawyer, I am being hypocritical, I am prepared to go further. If the real test of how effective such a rule would be is that all of us should abandon all outside interests, I say that I am in favour of that. I say that the House has now reached a stage, long after we are paid adequate salaries, when we ought to be able to say, as the American Congress says, that hon. Members are not allowed any outside interests at all. If that means a complete revision of the payments made to hon. Members, so be it. If we were to move to that position, there would be a gain from this debate.

We have not got to that stage. Are we to penalise the right hon. Gentleman because he used a particular form of words in his resignation speech or did not say the holy words at the beginning of the Malta debate? Are we to penalise my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton because he did not put something into a letter which he wrote to some Maltese when we do not have a rule stating that an interest has to be disclosed to people overseas? Are we to penalise him because, when he wrote to George Brown, he did not say that he had a commercial interest? All that was being considered was whether Poulson, as Poulson, was a reasonable person to appoint to the Yorkshire and Humberside Regional Economic Planning Council.

What we ought to be dealing with is the crux of the matter. I do not believe that tonight we should do anything more than accept the motion of the Lord President. That will kill, politically, the reputation of the right hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend. They will have no future in politics after that motion is passed. That is punishment enough. Let us leave the two men to end their days as they wish thereafter. But let us, after that, begin to consider whether we ought not to get to the real crux of the matter, which is that we ought to abolish interests altogether.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. Francis Pym (Cambridgeshire)

You said at the outset, Mr. Speaker, that this was a House of Commons occasion, and it most certainly is. It is a very difficult day for the House of Commons, as well as a very important one. The House must come to a conclusion that is just and fair and it has to do so—I am sure that it will—with the greatest degree of objectivity and the least possible degree —if possible, without any—of partisanship.

I would say to the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) that whether the principle of outside interests is good or bad, it is not relevant, because we have to take a decision tonight on the basis of the circumstances as they are.

I would start with a word about Mr. John Cordle, because I think that the feeling of the House, following his personal statement last Friday, would be that of sympathy and respect. What he did and said on that occasion had wide support.

When the Select Committee was set up originally there were great anxiety and deep alarm in the House at the possibility that in some way or another Members of Parliament might be involved in some degree of dishonesty, corruption or bribery, with all the implications and unpleasantness that that would bring with it. When the Committee reported there was a great feeling of relief that it found quite categorically and explicitly that there was no corruption of any kind whatever and no suggestion of corruption of any kind whatever, either in the popular sense or in the legal sense, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas) described it. That applies to our ex-colleagues from Northern Ireland. I support what the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart) said about that, as well as his hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Ward).

There is a public impression, due to the very extensive interest in this subject, which, to my regret at any rate, has become something of a media event, that something reprehensible or thoroughly objectionable has occurred. That is a gross exaggeration, indeed, an inaccuracy, as the Report of the Select Committee makes clear. All that is criticised in this Report is what was or was not said in this House on certain few occasions in relation to the declaration of Members' private interests.

This rule of declaration of interest is a very important one as the House knows. Its purpose is to protect hon. Members and to prevent hon. Members' views on policy being accepted without the House realising and understanding the extent to which there may be a possibility of a personal interest as well. The essence of the potenial danger is concealment. But, demonstrably, in the cases that we are discussing, there has been no question of concealment.

What the Select Committee is saying is that within this House there ought to have been a major degree of disclosure and declaration of interests. Certainly in the case of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling)—I also think it applies to the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. Roberts)—his business interests, which are the subject of this Report, are very well known not only in the United Kingdom but in Malta and elsewhere. They were very properly known and publicly known, and the Report makes that absolutely clear.

The debate began with extremely important and powerful speeches from my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet and the hon. Member for Normanton. The hon. Member for Normanton ended his speech with an apology to the House which I have no doubt the House will wish to accept. My right hon. Friend made some very penetrating criticisms of the findings of the Report, particularly with regard to the resignation letter and paragraph 33 and also in relation to whether he ought to have declared his interests in two debates more than 10 years ago, in February 1967.

We must weigh those speeches and the arguments very carefully, because we are dealing here with individuals and with their rights as individuals as well as their rights as Members of Parliament. The House naturally wishes to ensure that justice is done and is seen to be done. That is the very painful responsibility that we have tonight.

Right hon. and hon. Members have criticised the Select Committee and the procedure behind it, but emphatically not the hon. Members who served on it. Of course, the Select Committee procedure is capable of criticism. Even the courts are capable of criticism. In fact, no gathering of this kind can be immune from criticism. But tonight we have the responsibility of seeing that justice is done to individuals and to pass our judgment in the light of the Report.

We have another responsibility as well—a responsibility to this House. The right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) spoke of the esteem in which this House is held. He is absolutely right, and we must give full weight to that. But we must get it right for both the House and individual hon. Members.

It is right for me, speaking from this Dispatch Box, to look at the matter particularly carefully from the point of view of the House of Commons as well as that of individual Members. All matters appertaining to the Houses' procedures, our conduct and how we run our business must remain our own responsibility. We cannot push desicions on these matters on to others. We cannot devolve that duty to any outside body, because that is simply not acceptable.

The question is how the House of Commons will cope with situations of this kind. I do not think that anyone has suggested an alternative to the Select Committee. No major change has been suggested today. The last time was in the Marconi case, which was referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath).

The Select Committee acted in accordance with precedents, and it took, as Select Committees do within broad limits, responsibility for advancing its own procedure, deciding how to conduct itself, and operating to a large extent by self-regulation. It is open to the House to instruct the Select Committee, for example, on the basis of what the Attorney-General said, or in some other way. But the House decided not to do so in this case. The House could alter the Committee's procedures either in a particular case, or permanetly.

We have altered procedures here today. By the clear will of the House, decided by voice, it was agreed that the right hon. Member and the hon. Member concerned should be allowed to be present throughout the debate. That is a change which I believe has come to stay for all time if ever such circumstances arise again.

After this debate today and this particular case it is very likely that the House will want to alter the procedure. The important speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertford-shire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) would be a very good starting point for that process. [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite may laugh, but after the circumstances surrounding this case and the agony that hon. Members have been through in the past few days, it is justifiable to expect that consideration will be given to future changes.

It may be that we should introduce more judicial practices and conventions and that the House will consider such suggestions. But none of that helps us in this decision tonight. The Select Committee, operating under the usual conditions and on the basis of contemporary practices, was established with 10 hon. Members from all parties being appointed. It sat for eight months, took a lot of evidence and read a mass of papers. It came up with the unanimous Report that we must now decide whether to accept.

We are dealing with three separate cases. Obviously, there is no obligation on the House to agree with the Select Committee. Arguments have been adduced that the House should automatically agree with the Select Committee's findings, but I stress that there is no obligation so to do. Equally, we must have good reason not to agree with the report.

Certainly in the case of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet I am bound to say that I think that there has been enough doubt cast on what was decided. I do not think that any fair man could say other than that. In the speech that he made and in the facts that have emerged I am bound to say that there is enough doubt to justify something other than agreement with the Select Committee. I am only expressing a personal view. Individual Members must decide for themselves.

It is not an open and shut case. For example, there is great significance in the fact that there is no finding in the Report of inconsistent conduct in relation to the non-declaration charge but only in relation to the resignation letter. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) drew attention to that fact, and confirmed in regard to the former matter that it was no more than perhaps an error of judgment by the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet.

The hon. and learned Gentleman then referred to paragraph 33 and sought to cast doubt on a part of a sentence in that paragraph. The words to which he referred were While the letter contains nothing that is untrue". He adduced evidence to suggest that that phrase in the Report was not accurate. He did not say that it was wrong, but, by implication, he implied that in his view it was inaccurate. There are members of the Committee who have themselves cast doubt on what was said in the Report about the right hon. Gentleman in terms of natural justice and fairness, which is what this debate is about. That is an important point.

A further point which has been made is that the Members concerned should have been called back to the Select Committe. Certainly they should have been given that opportunity, but it is fair to say that the Chairman of the Committee, the right hon. Member for Fulham, was accurate in saying that in such circumstances Select Committees do not usually call Members back. Nevertheless, in view of the nature of the charge and what has subsequently come to light, there is a strong feeling in the House that that course should have been open to the Members concerned.

I was surprised to hear the right hon. Member for Vauxhall say that he was afraid that if we did not agree with the Select Committee's Report there would be accusations of whitewashing. What about the justice aspect of the matter? The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said that we must do what is right, and I agree with him. Let us not be concerned with what somebody outside says about white-washing. If what we do is right, it does not matter.

The right hon. Member for Vauxhall went on to say that the code of conduct of the House had been violated. But that is what the House has to decide. There has been argument on that matter and if the right hon. Gentleman has a strong view upon it, he will vote accordingly. However, doubt has been cast on that view. It is questionable whether that could be said in a fair sense to have been proved in the case of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet.

I have no hesitation in opposing the amendments that seek to impose punitive action. I think that expulsion would be absurd and absolutely ridiculous. The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) referred to the Garry Allighan case, but the circumstances there were totally different, because in that case corruption was found. The case we are now discusing is in no sense comparable. In the context of this case any suggestion of expulsion is to my mind nothing short of obscene. Suspension is equally

ridiculous, inappropriate ad unnecessary. I feel that such a proposal contains a vindictive element. I hope that it has no political overtones. It is completely inappropriate to go so far as that amendment seeks to take the matter.

What we have before us today and what is at stake is the practice of the House of Commons of declaring interest. That is what is under discussion, and it is a hallowed and sound practice. If the House were to find somebody guilty of not declaring an interest, I do not see why that should attract a penalty such as is outlined in the amendments. We must have a sense of proportion. There is no corruption and there is no suggestion of it.

I hope that that message will go out from this House to the country loud and clear. There is a blurred feeling that some corrupt practice has been indulged in. But if the Report says anything that is unanimous and important it is that no corruption whatever was found; and I repeat that we must keep a sense of proportion.

Mr. William Ross (Kilmarnock)

The right hon. Gentleman said that part of the Report was unanimous. In fact the whole of the Report is unanimous. If he is going ot disagree with the Report he will be disagreeing with the whole of it.

Mr. Pym

Of course the whole Report was unanimous, not only that part of it. I was trying to emphasise with as much strength as I could how important I believe it to be that, whatever else the Committee found, it found no corruption or any evidence of it.

As a general practice there is a presumption that the House normally agrees with a Select Committee's Report. The Report concerned three separate cases. There has been very little criticism of the Report in respect of Mr. Cordle—in fact there was none—or in respect of the hon. Member for Normanton, except by himself, and, of course, he made his own case. In the light of this, I hope that the House will agree that it would be right to agree with the Select Committee in its findings.

I have listened to every word of the debate so far, except for three sentences and, as far as I am aware, I do not think that anyone has challenged the findings of the Committee in relation to the hon. Member for Normanton. That seems to make the decision less controversial in his case. I am not proposing to vote against that decision in all the circumstances. I do not think that anyone has challenged the Select Committee in that area.

However, in the case of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet the circumstances are different, and I do not believe that any honest, fair-minded man who heard my right hon. Friend speak, or the subsequent two hours of debate, or preferably the whole of the debate, would come to any conclusion other than that there was too much doubt for us to be sure, too much doubt for us to be certain that we should be right to accept what the Committee has decided.

The whole of the debate has centred on the circumstances surrounding my right hon. Friend's case and the circumstances of his alleged non-declaration of interest. In fairness and justice I think that it would be right to distance ourselves to some extent from the Select Committee by agreeing to take note of the Report. I feel that that is the right thing to do. Of course I am speaking for myself here. Every hon. Member has to go through the agony of deciding. I am sorry on this occasion that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet is not sitting on the other side of the House, because I would say exactly the same in those circumstances. We have to be fair on whatever side of the House an hon. Member sits.

If we are to be fair and just to my right hon. Friend, if we say that it would be right for the House to take note of the Select Committee Report in his case, we are contributing positively to the good name of the House and upholding the traditions of the House, and in particular our responsibility to individual hon. Members and the fairness that we should show to all hon. Members. I hope very much that in that case the House will not agree with the Lord President, but will agree that it would be more appropriate to take note of the Report.

Mr. Ronald Bell

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that in the case of the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. Roberts) it seems to have been a case of someone being out of his depth rather than someone behaving in a manner other than would be expected in the House? Does he not feel, therefore, that the same view should be taken of the hon. Member for Normanton as of his right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling)?

Mr. Pym

My reply is that if there had been a quarter as much argument in the case of the hon. Member for Normanton as in the case of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet, it would be very much easier for the House to come to that conclusion. As a matter of fact, no one has adduced that case. It is difficult. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) may feel that that is the right course in the case of the hon. Member for Normanton as well. But the whole of the argument today has been about my right hon. Friend.

I agree that taking note of the Report would be a possible way of treating the hon. Member for Normanton. It is curious that there is such a contrast between all the evidence and argument adduced in the one case that was not adduced in the other.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Foot

If the House will permit me, I wish to add a few words. I do not wish to prevent any other hon. Member from speaking, although I should have thought that it would be best if we could reach the votes and decisions within a very short time now.

I have listened to every word uttered in the debate, as the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) has done, but I still hold to the opinion which I sought to put to the House at the outset. I greatly hope that the House will decide not to support the proposals for expulsion or suspension. For the reasons which I attempted to give earlier, I believe that either of those courses would be unwise in any of the cases before us. But I still hold to the view that it would be right for the House to agree with the opinion of the Select Committee in all the cases—that is, the case of Mr. Cordle, the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) and my hon Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr Roberts).

I believe that it would be right to do that, and I feel that the full scale of this debate turns in that direction. I must say that, and I am sure that all who heard the speeches of, for example, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) and others who have spoken will have been impressed by what they heard. I believe that to be the right verdict for the House to reach.

I wish, however, to add a final word, especially in view of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon). I agreed with almost everything he said, except his deduction regarding what would happen if the House agreed with the unanimous opinions of the Select Committee. My hon. Friend said that that would mean the end of the political life of those who were so condemned.

I do not take that view at all. Indeed there are many precedents which prove the opposite. For example, Robert Boothby was condemned or criticised by the House of Commons in similar terms on a motion of the same character following a Select Committee. The House took its decision then, agreeing with the report of the Select Committee, but nevertheless Robert Boothby—later Lord Boothby—lived to make a great contribution to this House and to the politics of our country as a whole. I do not believe that there would be that consequence, and I should not be taking my present view if I believed that it would.

I do not take the view that we have to agree with the unanimous reports of Select Committees in all cases or anything of the sort. However, in the light of all these circumstances and all the evidence which was most carefully examined by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart) and the Select Committee representative of the whole House, and in view of the comments which have been made upon the Report in the debate today, I believe that the right course for the House is, as I said earlier, to give combined acceptance of the unanimous conclusions of the Select Committee and thereafter to take no further action. That is the recommendation which I personally put to the House.

9.33 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire. South-West)

rose—

Hon. Members

"Oh."

Mr. Cormack

I hope that I shall be allowed to say a few words. It is not yet 10 o'clock, and I have sat throughout the debate.

I believe that the Leader of the House has today acted and spoken to us as a true Leader of the House in trying to prevent our polarising ourselves on what I consider to be a very sad and solemn occasion. Nevertheless, I take issue with the right hon. Gentleman's recommendations and conclusions, and I hope that we shall feel able to satisfy our own consciences and the opinion of people throughout the country by taking note of the several motions lather than by specifically approving the Committee's recommendations.

I say that quite deliberately as one who witnessed at fairly close quarters the harrowing events of Friday last, when Mr. John Cordle acted, I believe, with great honour and with considerable dignity and resigned his seat in the House. In so doing, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) reminded us, John Cordle deprived his constituents of somebody whom they held in high regard and great affection and whom they had elected and sent to this place.

I believe that we should be acting extremely rashly and most uncharitably if we presumed to put the constituents of Normanton and Chipping Barnet in the same position. I hope that we shall not take any step that could lead in that direction. There is a time when all of us in the House can exercise a little bit of charity towards our colleagues, and this is just such a time.

The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) spoke with passion and conviction, as he always does. I do not agree with his view and I take issue with him because every time he is elected by his constituents to the House and every time that he takes the oath or affirms he calls upon us for our charity because he does not believe in the monarchy of this country and must sit here as a republican. We must take that sort of thing into account.

We should realise, looking back over the period in question, which is 13 to 14 years, that there are few of us who can say that we have done everything completely as we might have wished or who have not made the odd mistake. If our colleagues have erred in any judgment, they have suffered more than enough from the publicity following the Report and during previous years when their names were constantly in the headlines.

We can serve the House best and show understanding best by taking note and leaving the matter there.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That this House agrees with the Report of the Committee insofar as it relates to Mr. John H. Cordle.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House agrees with the Report of the Committee insofar as it relates to Mr. Reginald Maudling.—[Mr. Foot.]

Amendment proposed, leave out 'agrees with' and insert 'takes note of' —[Mr. Ronald Bell.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 230, Noes 207.

Division No. 212]	AYES	[9.38 p.m.
Adley, Robert	Brittan, Leon	Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Altken, Jonathan	Brocklebank-Fowler, C.	Critchley, Julian
Alison, Michael	Brotherton, Michael	Crouch, David
Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)	Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)	Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Awdry, Daniel	Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)	Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Bryan, Sir Paul	Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Baker, Kenneth	Buchanan-Smith, Alick	Drayson, Burnaby
Banks, Robert	Buck, Antony	du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)	Budgen, Nick	Duffy, A. E. P.
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)	Bulmer, Esmond	Durant, Tony
Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)	Butler, Adam (Bosworth)	Dykes, Hugh
Biggs-Davison, John	Carlisle, Mark	Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Boardman, H.	Channon, Paul	Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Clegg, Walter	Elliott, Sir William
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)	Conlan, Bernard	English, Michael
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)	Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)	Eyre, Reginald
Braine, Sir Bernard	Costain, A. P.	Fairbairn, Nicholas
Fairgrieve, Russell	Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)	Ridsdale, Julian
Farr, John	Lloyd, Ian	Rifkind, Malcolm
Fell, Anthony	Loveridge, John	Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Finsberg, Geoffrey	Luce, Richard	Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Fisher, Sir Nigel	McCrindle, Robert	Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)	Macfarlane, Neil	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles	MacGregor, John	Royle, Sir Anthony
Fookes, Miss Janet	Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)	Sainsbury, Tim
Ford, Ben	McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)	St. John-Stevas, Norman
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)	McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)	Scott, Nicholas
Fry, Peter	Madel, David	Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.	Marshall, Michael (Arundel)	Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)	Marten, Neil	Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)	Mates, Michael	Shelton, William (Streatham)
Glyn, Dr Alan	Mather, Carol	Shepherd, Colin
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph	Mawby, Ray	Shersby, Michael
Goodhart, Philip	Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin	Silvester, Fred
Goodhew, Victor	Meyer, Sir Anthony	Sims, Roger
Goodlad, Alastair	Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)	Sinclair, Sir George
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)	Mills, Peter	Skeet, T. H. H.
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Grant, George (Morpeth)	Moate, Roger	Speed, Keith
Grieve, Percy	Monro, Hector	Spence, John
Griffiths, Eldon	Montgomery, Fergus	Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Grist, Ian	Moore, John (Croydon C)	Sproat, Iain
Grylls, Michael	Morgan, Geraint	Stainton, Keith
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.	Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral	Stanbrook, Ivor
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)	Morrison, Charles (Devizes)	Stanley, John
Hampson, Dr Keith	Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)	Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Hannam, John	Mudd, David	Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)	Neave, Airey	Stokes, John
Haselhurst, Alan	Nelson, Anthony	Stradling Thomas, J.
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael	Neubert, Michael	Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)
Hawkins, Paul	Newton, Tony	Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Hayhoe, Barney	Normanton, Tom	Tebbit, Norman
Heseltine, Michael	Nott, John	Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Higgins, Terence L.	Onslow, Cranley	Thorpe, RI Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Holland, Philip	Oppenheim, Mrs Sally	Tomney, Frank
Hordern, Peter	Osborn, John	Tuck, Raphael
Hughes, Mark (Durham)	Page, John (Harrow West)	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Hunt, David (Wirral)	Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)	Vaughan, Dr Gerald
Hutchison, Michael Clark	Page, Richard (Workington)	Viggers, Peter
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd & W'dt'd)	Pardoe, John	Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Jopling, Michael	Parkinson, Cecil	Wakeham, John
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith	Pattie, Geoffrey	Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)
Kaberry, Sir Donald	Percival, Ian	Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine	Peyton, Rt Hon John	Wall, Patrick
Kilfedder, James	Pink, R. Bonner	Warren, Kenneth
Kimball, Marcus	Prentice, Rt Hon Reg	Weatherlll, Bernard
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)	Price, David (Eastleigh)	Wells, John
King, Tom (Bridgwater)	Pym, Rt Hon Francis	Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
Kitson, Sir Timothy	Raison, Timothy	Wiggin, Jerry
Knight, Mrs Jill	Rathbone, Tim	Winterton, Nicholas
Knox, David	Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Wood, Rt Hon Richard
Lamond, James	Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)	Woodall, Alec
Lamont, Norman	Rees-Davies, W. R.	Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)
Langford-Holt, Sir John	Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)	Younger, Hon George
Lawrence, Ivan	Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Lawson, Nigel	Rhodes James, R.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Le Marchant, Spencer	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon	Mr. Ronald Bell and
Lester, Jim (Beeston)	Ridley, Hon Nicholas	Mr. Patrick Cormack.
NOES
Allaun, Frank	Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)	Deakins, Eric
Archer, Rt Hon Peter	Canavan, Dennis	Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Armstrong, Ernest	Cant, R. B.	Doig, Peter
Ashton, Joe	Carmichael, Neil	Dormand, J. D.
Atkinson, Norman	Carter, Ray	Dunlop, John
Bates, Alt	Carter-Jones, Lewis	Dunnett, Jack
Bean, R. E.	Castle, Rt Hon Barbara	Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Beith, A. J.	Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)	Eadie, Alex
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)	Clemitson, Ivor	Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Bidwell, Sydney	Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)	Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)
Biffen, John	Cohen, Stanley	Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Bishop, Rt Hon Edward	Coleman, Donald	Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Blenkinsop, Arthur	Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)	Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Boothroyd, Miss Betty	Cowans, Harry	Evans, John (Newton)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur	Crawford, Douglas	Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Bottomley, Peter	Crawshaw, Richard	Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Bradley, Tom	Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)	Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Davidson, Arthur	Flannery, Martin
Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)	Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)	Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Buchanan, Richard	Davies, Ifor (Gower)	Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)	Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)	Forman, Nigel

Forrester, John	Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)	Silverman, Julius
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)	McCusker, H.	Skinner, Dennis
Freeson, Reginald	McDonald, Dr Oonagh	Small, William
Garrett, John (Norwich S)	McElhone, Frank	Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
George, Bruce	MacFarquhar, Roderick	Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Ginsburg, David	Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor	Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)
Gourlay, Harry	McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)	Snaps, Peter
Graham, Ted	McNamara, Kevin	Spearing, Nigel
Grocott, Bruce	Madden, Max	Spriggs, Leslie
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	Mahon, Simon	Stallard, A. W.
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)	Mallalieu, J. P. W.	Stewart, Rt Hon Donald
Harper, Joseph	Marks, Kenneth	Stewart, fit Hon M. (Fulham)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter	Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)	Stoddart, David
Harvie Anderson, Rt hon Miss	Maynard, Miss Joan	Stott, Roger
Hatton, Frank	Mendelson, John	Strang, Gavin
Heffer, Eric S.	Mikardo, Ian	Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Hooley, Frank	Millan, Rt Hon Bruce	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Hooson, Emlyn	Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)	Temple-Morris, Peter
Horam, John	Mitchell, Austin Vernon (Grimsby)	Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)	Molloy, William	Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)	Molyneaux, James	Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)	Moyle, Roland	Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Huckfield, Les	Newens, Stanley	Tierney, Sydney
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)	Noble, Mike	Tinn, James
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)	Ogden, Eric	Tomlinson, John
Hunt, John (Bromley)	O'Halloran, Michael	Urwin, T. W.
Hunter, Adam	Orme, Rt Hon Stanley	Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)	Ovenden, John	Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)	Padley, Walter	Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Janner, Greville	Palmer, Arthur	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas	Parker, John	Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Jeger, Mrs Lena	Parry, Robert	Watkins, David
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)	Pavitt, Laurie	Watkinson, John
John, Brynmor	Penhaligon, David	White, Frank R. (Bury)
Johnson, James (Hull West)	Perry, Ernest	Whitehead, Phillip
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)	Prescott, John	Whitlock, William
Jones, Barry (East Flint)	Price, C. (Lewisham W)	Wigley, Dafydd
Kaufman, Gerald	Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)	Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Kerr, Russell	Richardson, Miss Jo	Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert	Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)	Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)
Kinnock, Neil	Robinson, Geoffrey	Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Lamble, David	Rodgers, George (Chorley)	Wilson, William (Coventry SE)
Lamborn, Harry	Rooker, J. W.	Wise, Mrs Audrey
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)	Roper, John	Woof, Robert
Latham, Michael (Melton)	Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)	Wrigglesworth, Ian
Lee, John	Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)	Sandelson, Neville	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)	Mr. George Cunningham and
Loyden, Eddie	Sillars, James	Mr. Arnold Shaw,
Lyon, Alexander (York)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendment proposed, at end add 'and that Mr. Maudling be expelled this House.'.—[Mr. William Hamilton.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon (seated and covered)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it right that on a vote of this kind there should be an organised Whip on the Opposition side of the House? Is it in order on an issue of this kind?

Mr. Speaker

Order. I know nothing about any organised Whip. In any case, it has nothing to do with me.

Mr. Peter Emery(seated and covered) (Honiton)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it right that an hon. Member should allege that there is an organised Whip on this side of the House when there is no such Whip at all?

Mr. Speaker

Order. I have already explained that I know nothing about the Whips. I have forgotten how they work.

The House having divided: Ayes 11, Noes 331.

Division No. 213	AYES	9.50 p.m.
Canavan, Dennis	Maynard, Miss Joan	Wise, Mrs Audrey
Carter-Jones, Lewis	Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Kinnock, Neil	Skinner, Dennis	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Lamble, David	Spriggs, Leslie	Mr. Christopher Price and
Loyden, Eddie	Thorne, Stan (Preston South)	Mr. William Hamilton.
NOES
Adley, Robert	Fairgrieve, Russell	Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Aitken, Jonathan	Farr, John	Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Alison, Michael	Fell, Anthony	Lloyd, Ian
Amery, Rt Hon Julian	Finsberg, Geoffrey	Loveridge, John
Archer, Rt Hon Peter	Fisher, Sir Nigel	Luce, Richard
Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)	Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)	Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Atkinson, Norman	Fletcher-Cooke, Charles	McCrindle, Robert
Awdry, Daniel	Fookes, Miss Janet	McCusker, H.
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Foot, Rt Hon Michael	Macfarlane, Neil
Baker, Kenneth	Ford, Ben	MacFarquhar, Roderick
Banks, Robert	Forman, Nigel	MacGregor, John
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)	Forrester, John	McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Bates, Alf	Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)	Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Beith, A. J.	Freud, Clement	McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Bell, Ronald	Fry, Peter	McNair-Wilson, M (Newbury)
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)	Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.	McNair-Wilson, P. (New Fores)
Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)	Gardiner, George (Reigate)	Madel, David
Biffen, John	Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)	Mahon, Simon
Biggs-Davison, John	Garrett, John (Norwich S)	Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Blaker, Peter	Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)	Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Boardman, H.	Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)	Marten, Neil
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Ginsburg, David	Mates, Michael
Bottomley, Peter	Glyn, Dr Alan	Mather, Carol
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)	Godber, Rt Hon Joseph	Mawby, Ray
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)	Goodhart, Philip	Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Bradley, Tom	Goodhew, Victor	Mayhew, Patrick
Braine, Sir Bernard	Goodlad, Alastair	Meyer, Sir Anthony
Brittan, Leon	Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)	Mikardo, Ian
Brocklebank-Fowler, C.	Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)	Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Brooke, Peter	Grant, George (Morpeth)	Mills, Peter
Brotherton, Michael	Grieve, Percy	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)	Griffiths, Eldon	Moate, Roger
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)	Grimond, Rt Hon J.	Molloy, William
Bryan, Sir Paul	Grist, Ian	Molyneaux, James
Buchanan-Smith, Alick	Hall-Davis, A. G. F.	Monro, Hector
Buck, Antony	Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)	Montgomery, Fergus
Budgen, Nick	Hampson, Dr Keith	Moore, John (Croydon C)
Bulmer, Esmond	Hannam, John	Morgan, Geraint
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)	Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)	Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)	Harvie Anderson, Rt hon Miss	Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Cant, R. B.	Haselhurst, Alan	Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Carlisle, Mark	Hastings, Stephen	Moyle, Roland
Chalker, Mrs Lynda	Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael	Mudd, David
Channon, Paul	Hawkins, Paul	Neave, Airey
Churchill, W. S.	Hayhoe, Barney	Nelson, Anthony
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)	Heath, Rt Hon Edward	Neubert, Michael
Clark, William (Croydon S)	Heffer, Eric S.	Newens, Stanley
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Heseltine, Michael	Newton, Tony
Clegg, Walter	Higgins, Terence L.	Normanton, Tom
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)	Holland, Philip	Nott, John
Cohen, Stanley	Hooson, Emlyn	O'Halloran, Michael
Conlan, Bernard	Hordern, Peter	Onslow, Cranley
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)	Howell, David (Guildford)	Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Cope, John	Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)	Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Cormack, Patrick	Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)	Osborn, John
Costain, A. P.	Hughes, Mark (Durham)	Ovenden, John
Cowans, Harry	Hunt, David (Wirral)	Padley, Walter
Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)	Hunt, John (Bromley)	Page, John (Harrow West)
Crawford, Douglas	Hurd, Douglas	Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Crawshaw, Richard	Hutchison, Michael Clark	Page, Richard (Workington)
Critchley, Julian	Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)	Pardoe, John
Crouch, David	Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd)	Parkinson, Cecil
Davies, Ifor (Gower)	Johnson, Walter (Derby S)	Pattie, Geoffrey
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)	Jopling, Michael	Penhaligon, David
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)	Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith	Percival, Ian
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)	Kaberry, Sir Donald	Perry, Ernest
Dodsworth, Geoffrey	Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine	Peyton, Rt Hon John
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James	Kershaw, Anthony	Pink, R. Bonner
Drayson, Burnaby	Kilfedder, James	Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward	Kilroy-Silk, Robert	Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Duffy, A. E. P.	Kimball, Marcus	Price. David (Eastleigh)
Dunnett, Jack	King, Evelyn (South Dorset)	Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Durant, Tony	King, Tom (Bridgwater)	Raison, Timothy
Dykes, Hugh	Knight, Mrs Jill	Rathbone, Tim
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John	Knox, David	Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)	Lamond, James	Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Elliott, Sir William	Lamont, Norman	Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)	Langford-Holt, Sir John	Rees-Davies, W. R.
Emery, Peter	Latham, Michael (Melton)	Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
English, Michael	Lawrence, Ivan	Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)	Lawson, Nigel	Rhodes James, R.
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)	Le Marchant, Spencer	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Eyre, Reginald	Lester, Jim (Beeston)	Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Fairbairn, Nicholas	Lever, Rt Hon Harold	Ridsdale, Julian

Rifkind, Malcolm	Spence, John	Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)	Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)	Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)	Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)	Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek
Robinson, Geoffrey	Sproat, lain	Wall, Patrick
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)	Stainton, Keith	Walters, Dennis
Roper, John	Stanbrook, Ivor	Warren, Kenneth
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)	Stanley, John	Watkins, David
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)	Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)	Watkinson, John
Royle, Sir Anthony	Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)	Weatherill, Bernard
Sainsbury, Tim	Stokes, John	Wells, John
St. John-Stevas, Norman	Stradling Thomas, J.	White, Frank R. (Bury)
Sandelson, Neville	Strang, Gavin	Whitehead, Phillip
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)	Tapsell, Peter	Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)	Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)	Wiggin, Jerry
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert	Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)	Wigley, Dafydd
Shelton, William (Streatham)	Tebbit, Norman	Willey, RI Hon Frederick
Shepherd, Colin	Temple-Morris, Peter	Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Shersby, Michael	Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret	Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)	Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)	Winterton, Nicholas
Sillars, James	Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)	Wood, Rt Hon Richard
Silvester, Fred	Tomlinson, John	Woodall, Alec
Sims, Roger	Tomney, Frank	Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)
Sinclair, Sir George	Tuck, Raphael	Younger, Hon George
Skeet, T. H. H.	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)	Vaughan, Dr Gerald	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)	Viggers, Peter	Mr, Timothy Kitson and
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)	Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)	Mr. Nicholas Scott.
Speed, Keith	Wakeham, John

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed, at end add: 'and since his conduct was inconsistent with the standards the House is entitled to expect from its Members suspends him from membership of this House for six months and suspends his salary as a Member for that period;

these suspensions to be Standing Orders of the House'.—[Mr. Strauss.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided:Ayes 97 Noes 324.

Division No.214]	AYES	[10.2 p.m.
Ashton, Joe	George, Bruce	Prescott, John
Atkinson, Norman	Graham, Ted	Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Bates, Alf	Grocott, Bruce	Richardson, Miss Jo
Bean, R. E.	Hamilton, W. W. (Central File)	Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Beith, A. J.	Hatton, Frank	Rooker, J. W.
Bidwell, Sydney	Heffer, Eric S.	Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Blenkinsop, Arthur	Hooley, Frank	Sillars, James
Booth, Rt Hon Albert	Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)	Skinner, Dennis
Boothroyd, Miss Betty	Huckfield, Les	Snape, Peter
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)	Sprigqs, Leslie
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)	Stallard, A. W.
Buchan, Norman	Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)	Stewart, Rt Hon Donald
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)	Johnson, James (Hull West)	Stoddart, David
Canavan, Dennis	Kinnock, Neil	Stott, Roger
Carmichael, Nell	Latham, Arthur (Paddington)	Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Carter-Jones, Lewis	Lee, John	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Clemitson, Ivor	Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)	Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)	Loyden, Eddie	Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)	McDonald, Dr Oonagh	Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Crawshaw, Richard	McElhone, Frank	Urwin, T. W.
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)	McNamara, Kevin	Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)	Madden, Max	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Deakins, Eric	Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)	Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)	Maynard, Miss Joan	Watkinson, John
Dormand, J. D.	Mendelson, John	Whitehead, Phillip
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)	Mikardo, Ian	Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)	Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)	Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
Evans, loan (Aberdare)	Mitchell, Austin Vernon (Grimsby)	Wilson, William (Coventry SE)
Evans, John (Newton)	Noble, Mike	Wise, Mrs Audrey
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray]	Palmer, Arthur
Flannery, Martin	Parker, John	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Parry, Robert	Mr. Nigel Spearing and
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)	Pavitt, Laurie	Mr. William Small.
Garrett, John (Norwich S)	Penhaligon, David
NOES
Adley, Robert	Awdry, Daniel	Bennett, De Reginald (Fareham)
Aitken, Michael	Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Benyon, W.
Alison, Michael	Baker, Kenneth	Bitten, John
Amery, Rt Hon Julian	Bennett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)	Biggs-Davison, John
Arnold, Tom	Bell, Ronald	Blaker, Peter
Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)	Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)	Boardman, H.
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Gorst, John	Meyer, Sir Anthony
Bottomlev, Peter	Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)	Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)	Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)	Mills, Peter
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)	Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)	Miscampbell, Norman
Bradley, Tom	Grant, George (Morpeth)	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Braine, Sir Bernard	Gray, Hamish	Moate, Roger
Britten, Leon	Grieve, Percy	Molyneaux, James
Brocklebank-Fowler, C.	Griffiths, Eldon	Monro, Hector
Brooke, Peter	Grimond, Rt Hon J.	Montgomery, Fergus
Brotherton, Michael	Grist, Ian	Moore, John (Croydon C)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)	Hall-Davis, A. G. F.	Morgan, Geraint
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)	Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)	Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)	Hampson, Dr Keith	Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Bryan, Sir Paul	Hannam, John	Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick	Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)	Moyle, Roland
Buck, Antony	Harrison, Rt Hon Walter	Mudd, David
Budgen, Nick	Harvie Anderson, Rt hon Miss	Neave, Airey
Bulmer, Esmond	Haselhurst, Alan	Nelson, Anthony
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)	Hastings, Stephen	Neubert, Michael
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)	Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael	Newens, Stanley
Cant, R. B.	Hawkins, Paul	Newton, Tony
Carlisle, Mark	Hayhoe, Barney	Normanton, Tom
Chalker, Mrs Lynda	Heath, Rt Hon Edward	Nott, John
Channon, Paul	Heseltine, Michael	O'Halloran, Michael
Churchill, W. S.	Higgins, Terence L.	Onslow, Cranley
Clark, William (Croydon S)	Holland, Philip	Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Hordern, Peter	Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Clegg, Walter	Howell, David (Guildford)	Osborn, John
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)	Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)	Ovenden, John
Coleman, Donald	Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)	Padley, Walter
Conlan, Bernard	Hughes, Mark (Durham)	Page, John (Harrow West)
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)	Hunt, David (Wirral)	Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Cope, John	Hunt, John (Bromley)	Page, Richard (Workington)
Costain, A. P.	Hurd, Douglas	Pardoe, John
Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)	Hutchison, Michael Clark	Parkinson, Cecil
Crawford, Douglas	Jay, Rt Hon Douglas	Pattie, Geoffrey
Crouch, David	Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd)	Percival, Ian
Davies, Ifor (Gower)	Johnson, Walter (Derby S)	Perry, Ernest
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)	Jopling, Michael	Peyton, Rt Hon John
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)	Joseph, RI Hon Sir Keith	Pink, R. Bonner
Dodsworth, Geoffrey	Kaberry, Sir Donald	Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James	Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine	Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Drayson, Burnaby	Kershaw, Anthony	Price, David (Eastleigh)
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward	Kilfedder, James	Prior, Rt Hon James
Duffy, A. E. P.	Kilroy-Silk, Robert	Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Dunnett, Jack	Kimball, Marcus	Raison, Timothy
Durant, Tony	King, Evelyn (South Dorset)	Rathbone, Tim
Dykes, Hugh	King, Tom (Bridgwater)	Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John	Kitson, Sir Timothy	Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)	Knight, Mrs Jill	Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)
Elliott, Sir William	Knox, David	Rees-Davies, W. R.
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)	Lamond, James	Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Emery, Peter	Lamont, Norman	Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
English, Michael	Longford-Holt, Sir John	Rhodes James, R.
Ennals, David	Latham, Michael (Melton)	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)	Lawrence, Ivan	Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Eyre, Reginald	Lawson, Nigel	Ridsdale, Julian
Fairbairn, Nicholas	Le Marchant, Spencer	Rifkind, Malcolm
Fairgrieve, Russell	Lester, Jim (Beeston)	Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Farr, John	Lever, Rt Hon Harold	Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Fell, Anthony	Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)	Robinson, Geoffrey
Finsberg, Geoffrey	Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Fisher, Sir Nigel	Lloyd, Ian	Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)	Loveridge, John	Roper, John
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles	Luce, Richard	Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Fookes, Miss Janet	McCrindle, Robert	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael	McCusker, H.	Royle, Sir Anthony
Ford, Ben	Macfarlane, Neil	Sainsbury, Tim
Forman, Nigel	MacFarquhar, Roderick	St. John-Stevas, Norman
Forrester, John	MacGregor, John	Sandelson, Neville
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)	McGuire, Michael (Ince)	Scott, Nicholas
Fox, Marcus	Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)	Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)	McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)	Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Freud, Clement	McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)	Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Fry, Peter	Madel, David	Shelton, William (Streatham)
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.	Magee, Bryan	Shepherd, Colin
Gardiner, George (Reigate)	Mahon, Simon	Shersby, Michael
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)	Mallalieu, J. P. W.	Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)	Marshall, Michael (Arundel)	Silvester, Fred
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)	Marten, Neil	Sims, Roger
Ginsburg, David	Mates, Michael	Sinclair, Sir George
Glyn, Dr Alan	Mather, Carol	Skeet, T. H. H.
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph	Maude, Angus	Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Goodhart, Philip	Mawby, Ray	Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Goodhew, Victor	Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin	Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)
Goodlad, Alastair	Mayhew, Patrick	Speed, Keith

Spence, John	Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)	Wells, John
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)	Tinn, James	White, Frank R. (Bury)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)	Tomlinson, John	Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
Sproat, Iain	Tomney, Frank	Wiggin, Jerry
Stainton, Keith	Tuck, Raphael	Wlgley, Dafydd
Stanbrook, Ivor	van Straubenzee, W. R.	Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Stanley, John	Vaughan, Dr Gerald	Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)	Viggers, Peter	Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)	Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)	Winterton, Nicholas
Stokes, John	Wakeham, John	Wood, Rt Hon Richard
Stradling Thomas, J.	Welder, David (Clitheroe)	Woodall, Alec
Tapsell, Peter	Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)	Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)	Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek	Younger, Hon George
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)	Wall, Patrick
Tebbit, Norman	Walters, Dennis	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Temple-Morris, Peter	Warren, Kenneth	Mr. Patrick Cormack and
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret	Weatherill, Bernard	Mr. Robert Banks.
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved, That this House takes note of the Report of the Committee insofar as it relates to Mr. Reginald Maudling.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That this House agrees with the Report of the Committee insofar as it relates to Mr. Albert Roberts.—[Mr. Foot.]

Amendment proposed, leave out 'agrees with' and insert 'takes note of'. —[Mr. Ronald Bell.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 288, Noes 144.

Division No. 215]	AYES	[10.15 p.m.
Adley, Robert	Cowans, Harry	Gourlay, Harry
Altken, Jonathan	Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)	Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Alison, Michael	Crouch, David	Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Amery, Rt Hon Julian	Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)	Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Archer, Rt Hon Peter	Dean, Joseph (Leads Wast)	Grant, George (Morpeth)
Armstrong, Ernest	Dean, Paul (N Somerset)	Grieve, Percy
Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)	Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James	Griffiths, Eldon
Awdry, Daniel	Drayson, Burnaby	Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	du Cann, Rt Hon Edward	Grist, Ian
Baker, Kenneth	Duffy, A. E. P.	Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Banks, Robert	Dunnett, Jack	Hamilton, James (Both well)
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)	Durant, Tony	Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)	Dykes, Hugh	Hampson, Dr Keith
Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)	Eden, Rt Hon Sir John	Hannam, John
Benyon, W.	Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)	Harper, Joseph
Biggs-Davison, John	Elliott, Sir William	Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Bishop, Rt Hon Edward	Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)	Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Boardman, H.	English, Michael	Haselhurst, Alan
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Ennals, David	Hastings, Stephen
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)	Eyre, Reginald	Hawkins, Paul
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)	Fairbairn, Nicholas	Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Bradley, Tom	Fairgrieve, Russall	Heseltine, Michael
Braine, Sir Bernard	Farr, John	Higgins, Terence L.
Brocklebank-Fowler, C.	Fell, Anthony	Holland, Philip
Brooke, Peter	Finsberg, Geoffrey	Hordern, Peter
Brotherton, Michael	Fisher, Sir Nigel	Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)	Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)	Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)	Fletcher-Cooke, Charles	Hunt, David (Wirral)
Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)	Fookes, Miss Janet	Hunter, Adam
Bryan, Sir Paul	Foot, Rt Hon Michael	Hurd, Douglas
Buchanan-Smith, Alick	Ford, Ben	Hutchison, Michael Clark
Buck, Antony	Forrester, John	Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)	Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)	Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)	Fox, Marcus	Jeger, Mrs Lena
Cant, R. B.	Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)	Johnson, James (Hull West)
Carlisle, Mark	Freud, Clement	Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara	Fry, Peter	Jopling, Michael
Chalker, Mrs Lynda	Galbraith, Hon T. G. D,	Kaberry, Sir Donald
Channon, Paul	Gardiner, George (Reigate)	Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Churchill, W. S.	Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)	Kerr, Russell
Clark, William (Croydon S)	Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chasham)	Kershaw, Anthony
Clegg, Walter	Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)	Kilfedder, James
Cohen, Stanley	Ginsburg, David	Kimball, Marcus
Coleman, Donald	Glyn, Dr Alan	King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Conlan, Bernard	Godber, Rt Hon Joseph	King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)	Goodhart, Philip	Kitson, Sir Timothy
Cope, John	Goodhew, Victor	Knight, Mrs Jill
Cormack, Patrick	Goodlad, Alastair	Knox, David
Costain, A. P.	Gorst, John	Lamond, James
Lamont, Norman	Osborn, John	Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Langford-Holt, Sir John	Padley, Walter	Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Lawrence, Ivan	Page, John (Harrow West)	Speed, Keith
Le Marchant, Spencer	Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)	Spence, John
Lester, Jim (Beeston)	Page, Richard (Workington)	Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Lever, Rt Hon Harold	Pardoe, John	Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)	Parkinson, Cecil	Sproat, Iain
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Pattie, Geoffrey	Stainton, Keith
Lloyd, Ian	Percival, Ian	Stanbrook, Ivor
Loveridge, John	Perry, Ernest	Stanley, John
Luce, Richard	Peyton, Rt Hon John	Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson	Pink, R. Bonner	Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
McCrindle, Robert	Prentice, Rt Hon Reg	Stokes, John
Macfarlane, Neil	Price, David (Eastleigh)	Stradling Thomas, J.
MacGregor, John	Prior, Rt Hon James	Tapsell, Peter
McGuire, Michael (Ince)	Raison, Timothy	Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)	Rathbone, Tim	Tebbit, Norman
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)	Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)	Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)	Tomlinson, John
Madel, David	Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)	Tomney, Frank
Mahon, Simon	Rees-Davies, W. R.	Tuck, Raphael
Mallalieu, J. P. W.	Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)	Vaughan, Dr Gerald
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)	Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)	Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Marten, Neil	Rhodes James, R	Wakeham, John
Mather, Carol	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Mawby, Ray	Ridley, Hon Nicholas	Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin	Ridsdale, Julian	Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek
Meyer, Sir Anthony	Rifkind, Malcolm	Wall, Patrick
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)	Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)	Walters, Dennis
Mills, Peter	Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)	Ward, Michael
Miscampbell, Norman	Roberts, Wyn (Conway)	Warren, Kenneth
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)	Watkins, David
Moate, Roger	Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)	Weatherill, Bernard
Molloy, William	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)	Wells, John
Monro, Hector	Royle, Sir Anthony	Wiggin, Jerry
Montgomery, Fergus	Sainsbury, Tim	Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Moore, John (Croydon C)	Sandelson, Neville	Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Morgan, Geraint	Scott, Nicholas	Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral	Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)	Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)	Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)	Winterton, Nicholas
Mudd, David	Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert	Wood, Rt Hon Richard
Neave, Airey	Shelton, William (Streatham)	Woodall, Alec
Nelson, Anthony	Shepherd, Colin	Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)
Newton, Tony	Shersby, Michael	Younger, Hon George
Normanton, Tom	Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Nott, John	Silvester, Fred	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Ogden, Eric	Sinclair, Sir George	Mr. Ronald Bell and
O'Halloran, Michael	Skeet, T. H. H.	Mr. Charles Morrison.
Onslow, Cranley
NOES
Allaun, Frank	Ewing, Harry (Stirling)	Lee, John
Ashton, Joe	Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)	Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)
Bates, Alf	Fitch, Alan (Wigan)	Loyden, Eddie
Bean, R. E.	Flannery, Martin	McCusker, H.
Beith, A. J.	Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Bidwell, Sydney	Forman, Nigel	McElhone, Frank
Biffen, John	Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)	MacFarquhar, Roderick
Blenkinsop, Arthur	Garrett, John (Norwich S)	McNamara, Kevin
Booth, Rt Hon Albert	George, Bruce	Madden, Max
Boothroyd, Miss Betty	Graham, Ted	Magee, Bryan
Bottomley, Peter	Grocott, Bruce	Marks, Kenneth
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)	Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Britten, Leon	Harvie Anderson, Rt hon Miss	Mates, Michael
Buchan, Norman	Hatton, Frank	Maynard, Miss Joan
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)	Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael	Mendelson, John
Canavan, Dennis	Heffer, Eric S.	Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Carmichael, Neil	Hooley, Frank	Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Hooson, Emlyn	Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Clemitson, Ivor	Horam, John	Mitchell, Austin Vernon (Grimsby)
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)	Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)	Molyneaux, James
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)	Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)	Moyle, Roland
Crawford, Douglas	Huckfield, Les	Neubert, Michael
Crawshaw, Richard	Hughes, Mark (Durham)	Newens, Stanley
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)	Hunt, John (Bromley)	Noble, Mike
Davies, Ifor (Gower)	Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)	Palmer, Arthur
Deakins, Eric	Janner, Greville	Parker, John
Dunlop, John	Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)	Parry, Robert
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth	Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith	Pavitt, Laurie
Eadie, Alex	Kilroy-Silk, Robert	Penhaligon, David
Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)	Kinnock, Neil	Prescott, John
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)	Lamble, David	Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Evans, John (Newton)	Latham, Michael (Melton)	Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Richardson, Miss Jo	Stallard, A. W.	Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)
Robinson, Geoffrey	Stott, Roger	Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)	Strang, Gavin	Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Rooker, J. W.	Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.	Watkinson, John
Roper, John	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)	White, Frank R. (Bury)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)	Temple-Morris, Peter	Whitehead, Phillip
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)	Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)	Whitlock, William
St. John-Stevas, Norman	Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)	Wigley, Dafydd
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)	Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)	Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
Sillars, James	Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)	Wilson, William (Coventry SE)
Sims, Roger	Thorne, Stan (Preston South)	Wise, Mrs Audrey
Skinner, Dennis	Tierney, Sydney	Wrigglesworth, Ian
Small, William	Tinn, James
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)	Urwin, T. W.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Snape, Peter	van Straubenzee, W. R.	Mr. George Cunningham and
Spearing, Nigel	Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.	Mr. Andrew F. Bennett,
Spriggs, Leslie

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendment proposed, at end add: 'and that Mr. Roberts be expelled this House.'.—[Mr. William Hamilton.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg(seated and covered) (Hampstead)

On a point of

order, Mr. Speaker. Is it possible to direct that the Division be taken by a show of hands rather than the House going through this tedious method of voting?

Mr. Speaker

I must put the Question. The House does not have to be patient for very much longer. There is only one other amendment.

The House having divided: Ayes 11, Noes 353.

Division No.216]	AYES	[10.28 p.m.
Canavan, Dennis	Rooker, J. W.	Wise, Mrs Audrey
Flannery, Martin	Skinner, Dennis
Loyden, Eddie	Spriggs, Leslie	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Maynard, Miss Joan	Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)	Mr. William Hamilton and
Rodgers, George (Chorley)	Thorne, Stan (Preston South)	Mr. Neil Kinnock.
NOES
Adley, Robert	Buck, Antony	English, Michael
Alison, Michael	Budgen, Nick	Ennals, David
Amery, Rt Hon Julian	Butler, Adam (Bosworth)	Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Archer, Rt Hon Peter	Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)	Eyre, Reginald
Armstrong, Ernest	Cant, R. B.	Fairgrieve, Russell
Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)	Carlisle, Mark	Farr, John
Awdry, Daniel	Chalker, Mrs Lynda	Fell, Anthony
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Churchill, W. S.	Finsberg, Geoffrey
Baker, Kenneth	Clark, William (Croydon S)	Fisher, Sir Nigel
Banks, Robert	Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)	Clegg, Walter	Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Bates, Alf	Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)	Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Beith, A. J.	Cohen, Stanley	Fookes, Miss Janet
Bell, Ronald	Conlan, Bernard	Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)	Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)	Ford, Ben
Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)	Cope, John	Forman, Nigel
Benyon, W.	Cormack, Patrick	Forrester, John
Biffen, John	Cowans, Harry	Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Biggs-Davison, John	Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)	Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Bishop, Rt Hon Edward	Crawford, Douglas	Fox, Marcus
Blaker, Peter	Crawshaw, Richard	Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)
Boardman, H.	Crouch, David	Freud, Clement
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Davies, Ifor (Gower)	Fry, Peter
Bottomley, Peter	Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)	Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)	Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)	Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)	Dean, Paul (N Somerset)	Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Bradley, Tom	Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James	Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Braine, Sir Bernard	Drayson, Burnaby	Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Brittan, Leon	du Cann, Rt Hon Edward	Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Brocklebank-Fowler, C.	Duffy, A. E. P.	Ginsburg, David
Brooke, Peter	Dunnett, Jack	Glyn, Dr Alan
Brotherton, Michael	Durant, Tony	Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)	Dykes, Hugh	Goodhart, Philip
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)	Eden, Rt Hon Sir John	Goodhew, Victor
Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)	Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)	Goodlad, Alastair
Bryan, Sir Paul	Elliott, Sir William	Gorst, John
Buchanan, Richard	Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)	Gourlay, Harry
Buchanan-Smith, Alick	Emery, Peter	Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)	Madel, David	Sainsbury, Tim
Graham, Ted	Magee, Bryan	St. John-Stevas, Norman
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)	Mahon, Simon	Sandelson, Neville
Grant, George (Morpeth)	Mallalieu, J. P. W.	Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Grieve, Percy	Marks, Kenneth	Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Griffiths, Eldon	Marshall, Michael (Arundel)	Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Grimond, Rt Hon J.	Marten, Neil	Shelton, William (Streatham)
Grist, Ian	Mates, Michael	Shepherd, Colin
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.	Mather, Carol	Shersby, Michael
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	Maude, Angus	Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)	Mawby, Ray	Sillars, James
Hampson, Dr Keith	Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin	Silverman, Julius
Hannam, John	Mayhew, Patrick	Silvester, Fred
Harper, Joseph	Meyer, Sir Anthony	Sims, Roger
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)	Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)	Sinclair, Sir George
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter	Miscampbell, Norman	Skeet, T. H. H.
Harvie Anderson, Rt hon Miss	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Haselhurst, Alan	Moate, Roger	Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael	Molloy, William	Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)
Hawkins, Paul	Molyneaux, James	Spence, John
Hayhoe, Barney	Monro, Hector	Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Heath, Rt Hon Edward	Moore, John (Croydon C)	Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Heffer, Eric S.	Morgan, Geraint	Sproat, lain
Higgins, Terence L.	Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral	Stainton, Keith
Holland, Philip	Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)	Stanbrook, Ivor
Hooson, Emlyn	Morrison, Charles (Devizes)	Stanley, John
Hordern, Peter	Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)	Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)	Moyle, Roland	Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)	Mudd, David	Stokes, John
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)	Neave, Airey	Stradling Thomas, J.
Hughes, Mark (Durham)	Nelson, Anthony	Strang, Gavin
Hunt, David (Wirral)	Neubert, Michael	Tapsell, Peter
Hunt, John (Bromley)	Newens, Stanley	Tapsell, Peter
Hunter, Adam	Newton, Tony	Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)
Hurd, Douglas	Normanton, Tom	Tebbit, Norman
Hutchison, Michael Clark	Nott, John	Temple-Morris, Peter
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)	O'Halloran, Michael	Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas	Onslow, Cranley	Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Jeger, Mrs Lena	Openheim, Mrs Sally	Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
Jeger, Mrs Lena	Oppenheim, Mrs Sally	Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd)	Orme, Rt Hon Stanley	Tinn, James
Johnson, James (Hull West)	Osborn, John	Tomlinson John
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)	Ovenden, John	Tomney, Frank
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)	Padley, Walter	Tuck, Raphael
Jopling, Michael	Page, John (Harrow West)	Tuck, Raphael
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith	Page, Rt Hon R. Grahanm (Crosby)	van Straubenzee, W.R.
Jopling, Michael	Page, Richard (Workington)	Vaughan, Dr Gerald
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith	Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)	Viggers, Peter
Kaberry, Sir Donald	Page, Richard (Workington)	Viggers, Peter
Kershaw, Anthony	Pardoe, John	Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Kilfedder, James	Parkinson, Cecil	Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert	Pattie, Geoffrey	Wakeham, John
Kimball, Marcus	Penhaligon, David	Walder, David (Clitheroe)
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)	Percival, Ian	Walder, Harold (Doncaster)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)	Perry, Ernest	Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)
Knight, Mrs Jill	Peyton, Rt Hon John	Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek
Knox, David	Pink, R. Bonner	Wall, Patrick
Lamble, David	Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Lamond, James	Prentice, Rt Hon Reg	Walters, Dennis
Lamont, Norman	Price, David (Eastleigh)	Ward, Michael
Langford-Holt, Sir John	Prior, Rt Hon James	Warren, Kenneth
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)	Pym, Rt Hon Francis	Watkins, David
Latham, Michael (Melton)	Raison, Timothy	Watkinson, John
Lawrence, Ivan	Rathbone, Tim	Weatherill, Bernard
Lawson, Nigel	Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Wells, John
Le Marchant, Spencer	Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)	White, Frank R. (Bury)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)	Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)	Whitehead, Phillip
Lever, Rt Hon Harold	Rees-Davies, W.R.	Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)	Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)	Wiggin, Jerry
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)	Wigley, Dafydd
Lloyd, Ian	Rhodes James, R.	Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Loveridge, John	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon	Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Luce, Richard	Ridley, Hon Nicholas	Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)	Ridsdale, Julian	Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson	Rifkind, Malcolm	Wilson, William (Coventry SE)
McCrindle, Robert	Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)	Winterton, Nicholas
McCusker, H.	Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)	Wood, Rt Hon Richard
Macfarlane, Neil	Robinson, Geoffrey	Woodall, Alec
MacFarquhar, Roderick	Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)	Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)
MacGregor, John	Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)	Younger, Hon George
McGuire, Michael (Ince)	Roper, John
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)	Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)	Sir Timothy Kitson and
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)	Royle, Sir Anthony	Mr. Nicholas Scott.
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed, at end add: 'and since his conduct was inconsistent with the standards the House is entitled to expect from its Members suspends him from membership of this House for six months and suspends his salary as a Member for that

period; these suspensions to be Standing Orders of the House'.—[Mr. Strauss.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 78, Noes 329.

Division No. 217	AYES	[10.40 p.m.
Ashton, Joe	George, Bruce	Prescott, John
Bates, Alf	Grocott, Bruce	Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Been R. E.	Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)	Richardson, Miss Jo
Beith, A. J.	Heffer, Eric S.	Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Bidwell, Sydney	Hooley, Frank	Rooker, J. W.
Blenkinsop, Arthur	Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)	Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Booth, Rt Hon Albert	Huckfield, Les	Sillars, James
Boothroyd, Miss Betty	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)	Skinner, Dennis
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)	Snape, Peter
Buchan, Norman	Kinnock, Neil	Spriggs, Leslie
Canavan, Dennis	Lee, John	Stallard, A. W.
Carmichael, Neil	Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)	Stoddart, David
Clemitson, Ivor	Loyden, Eddie	Stott, Roger
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)	McDonald, Dr Oonagh	Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Crawshaw, Richard	McElhone, Frank	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)	McNamara, Kevin	Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)	Madden, Max	Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Deakins, Eric	Maynard, Miss Joan	Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Dormand, J. D.	Mendelson, John	Urwin, T. W.
Dunlop, John	Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)	Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)	Mitchell, Austin Vernon (Grimsby)	Watkinson, John
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)	Noble, Mike	Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
Evans, John (Newton)	Palmer, Arthur	Wise, Mrs Audrey
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)	Parker, John
Flannery, Martin	Parry, Robert	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Pavitt, Laurie	Mr. Nigel Spearing and
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)	Penhaligon, David	Mr. William Small.
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
NOES
Adley, Robert	Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Ford, Ben
Alison, Michael	Clegg, Walter	Forman, Nigel
Amery, Rt Hon Julian	Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)	Forrester, John
Archer, Rt Hon Peter	Cohen, Stanley	Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'&'d)
Armstrong, Ernest	Coleman, Donald	Fox, Marcus
Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)	Conlan, Bernard	Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)
Awdry, Daniel	Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)	Freud, Clement
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Cope, John	Fry, Peter
Banks, Robert	Cormack, Patrick	Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)	Cowans, Harry	Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Bell, Ronald	Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)	Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)	Crawford, Douglas	Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)	Crouch, David	Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Benyon, W.	Davies, Ifor (Gower)	Ginsburg, David
Biffen, John	Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)	Glyn, Dr Alan
Biggs-Davison, John	Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)	Goodhart, Philip
Bishop, Rt Hon Edward	Dean, Paul (N Somerset)	Goodhew, Victor
Blaker, Peter	Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James	Goodlad, Alastair
Boardman, H.	Drayson, Burnaby	Gorst, John
Boscawen, Hon Robert	du Cann, Rt Hon Edward	Gourlay, Harry
Bottomley, Peter	Duffy, A. E. P.	Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)	Dunnett, Jack	Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent]	Durant, Tony	Graham, Ted
Bradley, Tom	Dykes, Hugh	Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Braine, Sir Bernard	Eden, Rt Hon Sir John	Grant, George (Morpeth)
Britten, Leon	Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)	Grieve, Percy
Brocklebank-Fowler, C.	Elliott, Sir William	Griffiths, Eldon
Brooke, Peter	Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)	Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Brotherton, Michael	Emery, Peter	Grist, Ian
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)	English, Michael	Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)	Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)	Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)	Eyre, Reginald	Hampson, Dr Keith
Bryan, Sir Paul	Fairgrieve, Russell	Hannam, John
Buchanan-Smith, Alick	Farr, John	Harper, Joseph
Buck, Antony	Fell, Anthony	Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Budgen, Nick	Finsberg, Geoffrey	Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)	Fisher, Sir Nigel	Harvie Anderson, Rt hon Miss
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)	Fitch, Alan (Wigan)	Haselhurst, Alan
Cant, R. B.	Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)	Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Chalker, Mrs Lynda	Fletcher-Cooke, Charles	Hawkins, Paul
Churchill, W. S.	Fookes, Miss Janet	Hayhoe, Barney
Clark, William (Croydon S)	Foot, Rt Hon Michael	Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Higgins, Terence L.	Miscampbell, Norman	Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Holland, Philip	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Hordern, Peter	Moate, Roger	Shelton, William (Streatham)
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)	Molyneaux, James	Shepherd, Colin
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)	Monro, Hector	Shersby, Michael
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)	Moore, John (Croydon C)	Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)	Morgan, Geraint	Silverman, Julius
Hunt, David (Wirral)	Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral	Silvester, Fred
Hunt, John (Bromley)	Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)	Sims, Roger
Hunter, Adam	Morrison, Charles (Devizes)	Sinclair, Sir George
Hurd, Douglas	Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)	Skeet, T. H. H.
Hutchison, Michael Clark	Moyle, Roland	Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)	Mudd, David	Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas	Neave, Airey	Smith, Timothy (Ashfield)
Jeger, Mrs Lena	Nelson, Anthony	Spence, John
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd)	Neubert, Michael	Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Johnson, James (Hull West)	Newens, Stanley	Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)	Newton, Tony	Sproat, Iain
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)	Normanton, Tom	Stainton, Keith
Jopling, Michael	Nott, John	Stanbrook, Ivor
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith	Ogden, Eric	Stanley, John
Kaberry, Sir Donald	O'Halloran, Michael	Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Kershaw, Anthony	Onslow, Cranley	Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Kilfedder, James	Oppenheim, Mrs Sally	Stokes, John
Kilroy-Silk, Robert	Orme, Rt Hon Stanley	Stradling Thomas, J.
Kimball, Marcus	Osborn, John	Tapsell, Peter
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)	Ovenden, John	Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)	Padley, Walter	Tebbit, Norman
Kitson, Sir Timothy	Page, John (Harrow West)	Temple-Morris, Peter
Knight, Mrs Jill	Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)	Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Knox, David	Page, Richard (Workington)	Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
Lamble, David	Pardoe, John	Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Lamond, James	Parkinson, Cecil	Tomlinson, John
Lamont, Norman	Pattie, Geoffrey	Tomney, Frank
Langford-Holt, Sir John	Percival, Ian	Tuck, Raphael
Latham, Michael (Melton)	Perry, Ernest	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Lawrence, Ivan	Peyton, Rt Hon John	Vaughan, Dr Gerald
Lawson, Nigel	Pink, R. Bonner	Viggers, Peter
Le Marchant, Spencer	Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch	Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)	Prentice, Rt Hon Reg	Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)	Price, David (Eastleigh)	Wakeham, John
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Prior, Rt Hon James	Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Lloyd, Ian	Pym, Rt Hon Francis	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Loveridge, John	Raison, Timothy	Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)
Luce, Richard	Rathbone, Tim	Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)	Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Wall, Patrick
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson	Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)	Walters, Dennis
McCrindle, Robert	Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)	Ward, Michael
McCusker, H.	Rees-Davies, W. R.	Warren, Kenneth
Macfarlane, Neil	Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)	Watkins, David
MacFarquhar, Roderick	Rhodes James, R.	Weatherill, Bernard
MacGregor, John	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon	Wells, John
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)	Ridley, Hon Nicholas	White, Frank R. (Bury)
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)	Ridsdale, Julian	Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
Madel, David	Rifkind, Malcolm	Wiggin, Jerry
Magee, Bryan	Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)	Wigley, Dafydd
Mahon, Simon	Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)	Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Mallalieu, J. P. W.	Roberts, Wyn (Conway)	Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Marks, Kenneth	Robinson, Geoffrey	Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)	Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)	Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Marten, Neil	Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)	Winterton, Nicholas
Mates, Michael	Roper, John	Wood, Rt Hon Richard
Mather, Carol	Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)	Woodall, Alec
Maude, Angus	Royle, Sir Anthony	Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)
Mawby, Ray	Sainsbury, Tim	Younger, Hon George
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin	St. John-Stevas, Norman
Mayhew, Patrick	Sandelson, Neville	TELLERS FOR THE NOES
Meyer, Sir Anthony	Scott, Nicholas	Mr. Mark Carlisle and
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)	Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)	Mr. Kenneth Baker.

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved, That this House takes note of the Report of the Committee insofar as it relates to Mr. Albert Roberts.

Mr. Martin Flannery (Sheffield, Hillsborough)

On a point of order. Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I must put the Ten o'clock motion.