HC Deb 20 July 1994 vol 247 cc369-93 7.10 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton)

I beg to move, That Mr. Attorney General, Mr. David Alton, Mr. Tony Benn, Sir Marcus Fox, Sir Peter Hordern, Mr. Doug Hoyle, Dame Jill Knight, Mr. Bill Michie, Sir David Mitchell, Mr. Alfred Morris, Mr. John Morris, Mr. Tony Newton, Sir Cranley Onslow, Sir Giles Shaw, Mr. Peter Shore, Sir James Spicer, and Mr. Alan Williams be members of the Committee of Privileges. The original motion on the Order Paper has been amended because a new position has arisen. My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Ward), whom we had intended to nominate as a member of the Committee, is expected—I have to put it in those terms at the moment —to take up another appointment that would be incompatible with his membership of the Committee. I have therefore suggested to the House an amended motion containing the name of Dame Jill Knight, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker

I am prepared and content to accept a motion moved in that form, with the name of Dame Jill Knight substituted for that of Mr. John Ward. I also inform the House at this stage that I have selected a manuscript amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), to leave out the name of Sir Marcus Fox.

Mr. Newton

I intend to speak only briefly to the motion, as I did on the original motion to establish the Committee—and for the same reasons. The nominations reflect established and accepted precedents in providing for the inclusion of myself as Leader of the House, the Attorney-General and the shadow Attorney-General, the chairman of the 1922 committee and the chairman of the parliamentary Labour party, and 12 other senior Members from both sides of the House. Eight members of the Committee—slightly fewer than half—are Privy Councillors. I believe that that will be a Committee whose experience and judgment will command the respect of the House, and in which it can have confidence concerning the discharge of the responsibility that the House has laid on it.

7.12 pm
Mr. Chris Mullin (Sunderland, South)

I shall be brief. My manuscript amendment calls upon the House to delete the name of the hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox). I have attempted to give the hon. Gentleman notice of the amendment. I left a note for him on the Board some hours ago, and telephoned his office, but he was not there. [HON. MEMBERS: "He was probably at a board meeting."' However, as his name appears on the Order Paper the hon. Gentleman is not entitled to be surprised that the business is being dealt with this evening.

I have nothing personal against the hon. Member for Shipley. I do not question his integrity in any way. But with the best will in the world, I do not accept that someone so weighed down with directorships and consultancies can creditably serve on a Committee of that nature. I took the opportunity to look in the Register of Members' Interests and saw that the hon. Gentleman has quite a long list of remunerated directorships.

For example, there is Westminster Communications, whose clients include British Gas, the Builders Merchants Federation and Standard Life. There are also the Care Services Group, which is a contract cleaning services company; McCarthy and Stone Ltd., which deals in sheltered housing; the Bristol Port Company; the Illingworth Morris group, which is a wool textile group; Hartley Investment Trust, a group investment company; the Yorkshire Food Group, a food processing company; and Pubmaster Ltd., which owns public houses.

The hon. Gentleman has other remunerated employment, too. He is a consultant to 3M (UK) Ltd.., a manufacturer of industrial, consumer, commercial and health care products; to Shepherd (Construction) Ltd., which is an industrial and commercial builder; and to Gratte Brothers Ltd., electrical engineers. Clearly the hon. Gentleman is an extremely busy man, quite apart from anything else. The question even arises whether he will have time to fit in service on the Committee between his other engagements.

However, that is not the point of my amendment. I believe that the Committee must not confine itself to the alleged foolishness of the two hon. Members whose actions caused it to be set up, but should address the wider issue—the fact that Members of Parliament are sent here to serve their constituents, not to enrich themselves. If the Committee failed to deal with that question, it would undermine not only its own credibility, not only Parliament's credibility, but the credibility of the democratic process.

Many of our constituents feel strongly about those issues, which reflect on all of us. So many people want to believe the worst of Parliament, and we all have an interest in ensuring that they believe the best. I am most anxious that people should not be able to allege that the Committee has been stitched up because it is too deeply in hock to vested interests to tackle properly the questions that it should address.

The hon. Member for Shipley is not by any stretch of the imagination the only Member who is weighed down with directorships and consultancies. It is cynical of the Government to stuff the Committee with Members who so obviously have an interest in ensuring that nothing will change. They have badly misread public opinion, and misread the mood in the House of Commons, too.

It is no part of my argument to say that there are no Tory Members fit to serve on the Committee. There are plenty of Tory Members of proven integrity who have no directorships or consultancies, and who share the Opposition's concern about the credibility of the democratic process. I should like to see some of those people on the Committee, and I am puzzled as to why the Government have chosen not to add any of them. They should take the names on the Order Paper away and come back with others.

My amendment asks the Government to delete only one name and to find just one Tory Member who is completely free of vested interests and can be relied upon to uphold the integrity of the House and to tackle the wider issues that the Committee should address.

Mrs. Alice Mahon (Halifax)

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way on the issue of removing one hon. Member from the Committee. He will be aware that I tabled an amendment, which was not selected, which requested that three hon. Members be removed and be replaced by three women. The Government have now tried to correct that serious error and they have put a woman on the Committee. I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that it is absolutely disgraceful that the Government simply see men in grey suits with lots of consultancies, and the rest of the human race is totally ignored.

Mr. Mullin

My hon. Friend makes an important point. As Chairman Mao said, women hold up half the sky. They should be properly represented on the Committee.

I repeat that I have nothing personal against the hon. Member for Shipley. I just want the Committee to command credibility not only with the House, but with the public. I want it to hold a proper inquiry which addresses an issue that has been a running sore for many of our constituents for many years. The fact that the situation has been allowed to continue for so many years does us no credit at all. I ask that the name of the hon. Member for Shipley be deleted from the list of Committee members.

7.20 pm
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones (Watford)

It may be appropriate for me to begin by declaring my own outside interests. I am on the advisory board of the Union Bank of Switzerland, I work for Bywater International and I work for British Gas and British Global Gas. There is one other confession that I should make to the House which is appropriate to this debate: on one occasion, I received £1,000 in the Palace of Westminster in circumstances that some of my constituents—I hope not many—might regard as reprehensible. I placed a wager with an Opposition Member on the result of the 1992 general election. He was unwise enough to bet on a Labour victory and I was able to pocket £1,000. I hope to show the House that this incident is relevant to the motion.

Mr. David Harris (St. Ives)

Opposition Members want complete openness; that is the whole point of the manuscript amendment. Surely, therefore, it is incumbent on my right hon. Friend to name the Opposition Member who handed over £1,000 to him.

Mr. Garel-Jones

I shall come to that point in a moment. I mention the incident because, although it is true that some of our constituents would condemn gambling in any shape or form, the fact is that most of our fellow citizens indulge in an occasional flutter. The House—this is the point that I wish to make in reference to the members of the Committee—would be vastly diminished if those of us who make up its membership did not reflect not only the hopes and ambitions of our constituents, but their whims and foibles. There is a footnote to the wager.

Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Ms Jean Corston (Bristol, East)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Garel-Jones

When I have concluded this point, I shall give way to hon. Members who wish to intervene.

There is a footnote to the wager—and this answers the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris). The Opposition Member concerned, who paid up promptly and honourably, asked me not to go public on the matter and that is why I do not propose to reveal his name. In fact I told a number of my close colleagues, including my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, on the very eve of the election and I have told a number of friends in the House about the incident since, always making it clear that it was not for public consumption. I am delighted to tell the House that it has never appeared in public print. I do not—

Mr. Salmond

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Garel-Jones

I shall finish the point and then I shall certainly give way. The hon. Gentleman need have no fears about that.

Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham)

Was it the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond)?

Mr. Garel-Jones

It was not.

I do not know why the Opposition Member concerned wants to keep the matter to himself. Perhaps it is partly for domestic reasons. If I had come home having lost a general election and £1,000, Mrs. Garel-Jones would have been exceedingly displeased with me. The hon. Member concerned may think that the puritan element of the Labour party—perhaps I should now call it the Christian socialist element—would find it distasteful that a member of the Labour party should be able to wager a considerable amount in that way. Whatever his reasons, I have thought it right to respect them.

I hope that the House and our constituents will think that neither of us comes out of this incident with any particular discredit. I also hope that punters across the country will wish that they had concluded, as I did and still do, that John Major is a good bet.

I make one final point on the matter. The House should know that the £1,000 was invested in a very pretty frock for Mrs. Garel-Jones and I am sure that Opposition and Conservative Members would approve of that.

Mr. Salmond

There is no disgrace in losing money backing one's own party, but there is some disgrace in winning money by betting against one's party. The right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) said that he wanted the Committee to be composed of those who reflected the range of foibles of hon. Members. By the same logic, would the right hon. Gentleman advocate that a criminal trial should take place in front of a jury of convicts?

Mr. Garel-Jones

I can answer both questions. I would advise the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), if he is placing bets, to bet on John Major and not on his own party. Curiously enough, the best bet at the general election, which I did not make, was 50 to one on the Tories getting more seats in Scotland, which as the hon. Gentleman will recall, they successfully did.

I remind the hon. Gentleman, with respect, that we are not talking here about a criminal trial. We are talking—I now come to the more serious part of my speech—about a very serious matter—the reputation and conduct of hon. Members and the reputation of the House itself. We are not talking about a criminal trial.

Ms Corston

I suspect that my hon. Friends and Conservative Members may consider that the right hon. Gentleman's comments are something of a smokescreen. He referred to a wager between himself and another hon. Member as a little flutter. Is he suggesting that having 18 consultancies or directorships, or accepting money for tabling questions is the same as a little flutter which is immediately honoured?

Mr. Garel-Jones

I am sorry that I gave way to the hon. Lady. I am coming to the main thrust of my speech. I was simply making the point—it is a fair point—that the House is not just a body of high-minded legislators, although I hope that it is that, too, but a group of men and women who, I hope and believe, broadly reflect not only the aspirations and hopes of the British people, but their whims and foibles. I hope that the House thinks that the illustration I have given is fair and that it does not reflect to the discredit of the Opposition Member concerned or myself.

In your statement to the House on 12 July, Madam Speaker, you indicated your thoughts to the House. The motion moved the following day by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown), which followed from that, has led to the nominations, with one amendment, in the motion today. The nominations have been made in the usual way by the two main parties, with one representative from the minority parties.

The task we are asking our colleagues to undertake is a difficult one. They have to examine not only the specific incident complained of, but what you, Madam Speaker, referred to as the conduct of the newspaper concerned, the wider aspect of our relationship with the press and the even wider topic of the lobbying of Parliament.

The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. CampbellSavours)—I have considerable respect, even affection, for the hon. Gentleman—has told the House that he regards the nominations as a stitch-up, a phrase repeated just now by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). It is the view of the hon. Member for Workington that no hon. Member who has any outside interests at all—not even, to be fair to him, because he has made it clear, Labour Members sponsored by trade unions or those with other outside interests—should be allowed to serve on the Committee. I think that that broadly is his view.

In fact, the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Sunderland, South are attempting to bring about a sort of reverse stitch-up of their own and, furthermore—I would contend—one that would irreparably damage the House and turn it into a refuge for unemployable people, third-rate people, one or two millionaires and a few perfectly admirable, if rather evangelical, campaigners.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North)

What a definition of the Tory party.

Mr. Garel-Jones

I am sorry that hon. Members are treating this debate with such levity. There are evangelical campaigners on both sides of the House who make a significant contribution to the House, as does the hon. Member for Workington. However, I do not believe that the interests of the House or the country would be served if the House was made up of evangelical campaigners with a sprinkling of millionaires and a few unemployable people.

I very much hope that the House will support the motion on the Order Paper and brush aside the amendment of the hon. Member for Sunderland, South, which is an attempt to stack the Committee in a way which accords with his view, and that of the hon. Member for Workington and perhaps some other Labour Members present, of the world.

As to the Committee as nominated, I have every confidence in both the Labour and Tory Members named that, between them, they represent a proper cross-section of today's House of Commons. As I said, the task that we are asking our colleagues to undertake, if the motion is carried, is a difficult one. The specific incident complained of is not one which reflects credit either on the hon. Members concerned or on the press and our relationship with them.

Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West)

The hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that our pay and allowances are inadequate to encourage people of quality to come here. If so, does he recall that we decide our own pay and allowances, and the two hon. Members who are the subject of this debate voted against the increase in our allowances two years ago, as did 50 other Tory Members who have substantial interests? If we decide the levels of our pay and allowances, we should set them at an adequate level, and we would not need to prostitute our work and time here to bodies outside.

Madam Speaker

I hope that the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) will not be led down that road because as he realises, and as does the House, all that we are discussing tonight is the motion on the Order Paper, which is a group of names.

Mr. Garel-Jones

I most certainly did not come into the House because I was attracted by the pay or, indeed, the conditions.

What I hope the nominated Members will not do is allow the hostile feelings that all of us sometimes feel towards the press to run away with them, and take measures against access to the press and so on which the House may, with hindsight, regret. I also hope that the Committee will not overreact to the foolish rather than wicked conduct of our colleagues. It will be for them, by their future conduct in the House, to regain and re-establish their reputations, and I am sure that that is what they will wish to do.

Finally, I hope that the Committee will not be over-prescriptive. We need new guidelines, but they should seek to strike a balance—I am sure that the names before us today will be the proper people to do this—between reinforcing the generally honest and open way in which hon. Members conduct themselves, and at the same time ensuring that the House continues to reflect the nation at large and to attract men and women who are capable of doing that. I hope that the House approves the motion, and I wish the Committee well in its deliberations.

7.34 pm
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)

I enjoyed the speech of the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones). It is the sort of speech that one would have expected him to give in the circumstances.

There was an interesting editorial in The Sun this morning. It is not a newspaper that I normally read, but I thought that I might commence my modest contribution this evening by quoting it because in many ways it sums up the dilemma in this debate. I quote: Fair's fair. Nine Tories are on the Committee investigating the 'questions for cash' affair. Between them they hold 18 lucrative directorships and nine consultancies. They will say that makes them eminently qualified to judge the issue. We do not for one moment doubt their integrity. But they must realise that many people fear a whitewash. If they are happy to investigate fellow MPs, we have a suggestion for them … Why not let the Murdoch-owned Sun decide the guilt of the Murdoch-owned Sunday Times. In many ways, that sums up what the argument is all about.

What I intend to do tonight is to put the case for those Tory Back Benchers who were not considered for the Committee, a number of whom are present in the Chamber. Over the past week, the House of Commons has made an ass of itself: all over the country, people are wondering why the Government allowed themselves to be drawn into this appalling mess and why they allowed Parliament to be discredited. People want to know—as, indeed, do I and many of my hon. Friends—why, out of something like 320 Tory Members, it was impossible to find nine good men or women free of commercial influences and capable and competent enough to sit on the Committee of Privileges.

I will read out to the House the names of all those hon. Members who, clearly, were not considered. They have no commercial interests and would have made fine Members of the Committee. The right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) and the hon. Members for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson), for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates), for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford), for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), for Lincoln (Sir K. Carlisle), for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill), for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon), for Beverley (Mr. Cran), for Cheadle (Mr. Day), for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), for Monmouth (Mr. Evans), for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths), for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Hawksley), for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald), for Norfolk, North (Sir R. Howell), for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes), for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg), for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), for Wyre (Mr. Mans), for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant), for Waveney (Mr. Porter), for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet), for Castle Point (Dr. Spink), for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson), for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend), for Windsor and Maidenhead (Mr. Trend), for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale), for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) and for Stevenage (Mr. Wood) are all free of commercial interests; all are able, I presume; and all are good Tories. Why were they not considered?

Among that list are four former Ministers, and as I look around I see that three of them are in the Chamber this evening. Why could not those hon. Members be put on the Committee? Why did the Government load the Committee with Members who have commercial interests?

Mr. Garel-Jones

How does the hon. Gentleman know that those hon. Members were not considered?

Mr. Campbell-Savours

If they were considered, why were they rejected? Is there something that we are not to be told—that they are not competent? I see the hon. Member for Dartford, who is a former Education Minister; I understand that he had six years in the Conservative Government. The hon. Member for Eltham had five years in the Conservative Government.

Mr. Peter Bottomley

Six.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

The hon. Gentleman was a Minister of State.

Mr. Garel-Jones

rose—

Mr. Campbell-Savours

I could seek the protection of the Chair, but I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Garel-Jones

Many Conservatives are astonished that the hon. Member has not been nominated by his party. Was he considered and was his name rejected? Did he refuse to serve?

Mr. Campbell-Savours

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) would have been a keen supporter of my nomination. I did not want to be a member of the Committee: I wanted to give evidence—I want to influence events.

I also believe that the hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) should give evidence to the Committee; he has a lot to say and a formidable case to make as he clearly believes in all the consultancies. He needs the money, so why was he not given the opportunity to give evidence to the Privileges Committee when he could put the case for perks? As it is, he will be wrapped up, behind closed doors, in conditions of private deliberation by members of the Committee. Unless the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) is carried, the hon. Member for Shipley will be unable to speak freely on this matter, so that the public can hear what he has to say.

We heard what the hon. Member for Shipley had to say some years ago, in 1989, when the Select Committee on Members' Interests held an inquiry into lobbying. The hon. Members for Shipley and for Wellingborough (Sir P. Fry) gave evidence. What the hon. Member for Shipley said was extremely interesting. It might be useful to the House to be reminded of that evidence, because it reveals why many of us have a problem with the hon. Gentleman's membership of the Privileges Committee. We believe that he has a conflict of interest with the terms and remit of that Committee.

In 1989, the hon. Member for Shipley was asked by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) about the activities of his consulting company. The hon. and learned Member asked: Can I ask you a more specific question: you tell us that you have been to see a Minister once in recent times"— I wonder whether the hon. Member for Eltham remembers that meeting, as he was the Minister concerned— did you go in your capacity as a Member of Parliament leading a delegation, or in your professional capacity as a director of the company? The hon. Member for Shipley replied: I took the deputation as a director of Westminster Communications and they were a client. That was made quite clear to the Minister"— the hon. Member for Eltham I took very little part, apart from introducing the people, who were far more knowledgable about the industry than I was. I certainly took no part in it in the role as a Member of Parliament. The hon. Member for Eltham seems to have forgotten that meeting, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Shipley will recall it.

Mr. Bottomley

rose—

Mr. Campbell-Savours

Do not worry: I will send the hon. Gentleman a copy—

Mr. Bottomley

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The hon. Member is making a number of references to me, among others, which are not all accurate. It would be a kindness if he could make the points that he wants to make without necessarily dragging in everyone else. To describe the meeting is fine, but to say what I did or did not know is not right. The hon. Gentleman would be doing the House a service if he got on with what he is trying to say.

Madam Speaker

That is not a point of order for me, but if the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) wishes to catch my eye to rebut anything now being said, I will certainly be able to call him.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

I presume from that point of order that the hon. Member for Eltham does recall that meeting and what he said at it.

At the 1989 inquiry, the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East went on to ask the hon. Member for Shipley: Do you think it was easier for you to obtain that meeting because you were a Member of Parliament who happened to be a consultant as well? The hon. Member for Shipley replied: Well, it would not be any hindrance". That reply is what worries some of us. We are genuinely concerned that someone who feels that that is the way to conduct himself as a Member of the House of Commons —by running a public relations company, having access to Ministers and arranging meetings for clients—should serve on the Privileges Committee and work its procedures in defence of a principle that we find quite unacceptable. We reject that approach.

Yesterday, the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) referred to eunuchs in the House of Commons. Many of my hon. Friends may not be pleased by what I am about to say, but I do not believe that hon. Members should not be directors of companies or consultants to companies if they so wish. It is their choice. If they want to do that, it is their choice and it is for their electors to decide whether they should be free to do so.

What I object to is the fact that, under the current rules, those hon. Members can use parliamentary proceedings to arrange the very meetings to which I have just referred, to table motions, to ask questions, to lobby civil servants and to lobby their colleagues. I object to them using all the privileges that the House offers to further the interests of their clients, customer companies and consultancies.

Dr. Robert Spink (Castle Point)

The hon. Gentleman has not referred yet to trade union sponsorship and membership of the Privileges Committee. Does he draw a distinction between trade union sponsorship and consultancies and directorships?

Mr. Campbell-Savours

For the umpteenth time in the past week, I will explain what that sponsorship means. I am one of those creatures who are sponsored, but in those nine years of sponsorship I have never received one penny from the trade union. I do not receive money now from it and I will never receive money from it. There are no conditions in which the trade union would ever dream of offering me any money. If the hon. Gentleman can imprint it on his grey matter, that sponsorship means that there is a relationship between Unison and my constituency party whereby the trade union transfers a sum of money to the constituency party, which is used to serve people and their complaints about employment, social security, housing, the Inland Revenue or whatever.

Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North)

I am in no doubt about the hon. Gentleman's position, which he has made quite plain, but I am in some doubt about how he feels about those hon. Members who write articles for newspapers, appear on television and on radio and are well remunerated for it. Does he put them in the same category as those who are directors, as the former frequently peddle their form of prejudice and try to promote various causes? Does the hon. Gentleman put them in the same category?

Mr. Campbell-Savours

No. If the hon. Gentleman does, he shows a misunderstanding of the debate. It is interesting that last weekend I was denied an interview on the "Breakfast with Frost" programme because the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) told the programme makers that he would not appear on television with me. He was obviously scared stiff of being asked critical questions about what was on the transcript of his conversation, which in my view he has misrepresented to the House. That, too, is a matter for the Committee to deal with.

It is important to consider the remit that you set for the Privileges Committee, Madam Speaker, and how it can conduct its inquiry. In your statement to the House, you said: I should like to make it clear that the Committee will have power to inquire not only into the matter of the particular complaint, but into the facts surrounding and reasonably connected with it, and into the principles of the law and custom of privilege which are concerned. I hope that it will use that power for the assistance of the House in a difficult area."—[Official Report, 12 July 1994; Vol. 246, c. 829.] I believe that that was an excellent remit because it was wide and covers all the area of concern that many of my hon. Friends wish the inquiry to consider.

We know that the inquiry will cover the question of entrapment—there are varying views about whether that took place—and the two hon. Members concerned, but I believe that there is another issue of far more importance that than specific matter. I do not believe that the hon. Members for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) and for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) are particularly relevant to the debate. We have moved on from them. They have been punished by their constituents and perhaps even by their local associations. Of course, the Committee will want to take a position on that, but the central issue now is what we do in future about the rule which gives Members the right to sell themselves to the highest bidder in a way—

Madam Speaker

Order. I must bring the hon. Member back to the motion, which concerns the names being put forward to form the Committee. Perhaps the hon. Member will deal with the motion.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

Absolutely, Madam Speaker. I shall lead directly to that.

If the remit of the Committee is as I have described, its business is consultancy. I am arguing that many of the Members whose names are set out in the motion will be faced with a conflict of interest when it comes to an inquiry into consultancy. I remember the report of the Select Committee on Members' Interests of 1990–91—it was the Committee's first report. In paragraph 24, to which I referred last week, we—that is: the Committee—stated, when a member of a committee, particularly the Chairman, has a pecuniary interest which is directly affected by a particular inquiry or when he or she considers that a personal interest may reflect upon the work of the committee or its subsequent report, the Member should stand aside from the Committee proceedings relating to it. That was endorsed by the House late one night without a vote. So the House has approved that Members must stand aside from the Committee if a conflict of interest exists.

We have a remit to examine consultancies and we have Members who are consultants on the Committee. I put it to the Leader of the House that there is a direct conflict of interest and that there will be many occasions during the course of the inquiry when, if the rule embodied in paragraph 24 is to be followed, many Members will have to withdraw. I want to know whether they will do so.

We are told that it is custom and tradition for the Committee to meet in private. The members of the Committee will not deliberate publicly. What assurances can I have, on the basis that no one on the Committee can disclose what is happening behind closed doors, that whenever the issue of consultancy arises—it is an issue that the inquiry must address as it is one of the three pillars of its work—Members who face a conflict of interest will withdraw? Who will carry out the policing? Who will consider the issue at every stage? Will the Clerk do so and advise the Chairman that the moment the conflict referred to in paragraph 24 arises, those Members who face it must withdraw?

The relevant resolution suggests that, when the Committee deals with its report, Members who face a conflict of interest should stand aside. Are we to presume that when the Committee deals with the subject of consultancy—this will be behind closed doors in a deliberative session—those Members who have consultancies and directorships will withdraw from the proceedings if those interests constitute a conflict of interest? If not, they would be in breach of a resolution of the House, and that would be wrong.

We will not let the issue go away. We will persist in raising it. We will not know what is going on behind closed doors. We might ask the Leader of the House every week —he will be a member of the Committee—whether the rule embodied in paragraph 24 is being enforced. The minutes will be published. In 1981, when I brought a complaint about Mr. Ian MacGregor, the chairman of the British Steel Corporation, the minutes of the Committee were published.

We shall study the Divisions that take place during the Committee's proceedings. There may well be Divisions. The Committee will be unlike previous Privileges Committees in some respects because its membership will include those who are not Privy Councillors. It might be more controversial in the way in which it works. The internal dynamics of the Committee might not be as consensual as on previous occasions. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) always tells us that the Committee has a tendency to drive itself into the sand.

There are aspects of the Committee's work that cause us problems. I want to know, as do my right hon. and hon. Friends, whether Members will withdraw in the event of a conflict arising. That is critical. If the Leader of the House has found a curious way of justifying the membership of the Committee, he must know that it is one that cannot be sustained publicly. He has not advanced any such argument at the Dispatch Box. He merely moved the motion. He did not deal with the issue of membership. Will he deal with it when he replies? If he cannot deal with it in a way which justifies the Committee's membership, does that mean that Members will have to withdraw? The only way to ensure that the Committee has credibility in the future is either to withdraw the motion or for Conservative Members to enter the Opposition Lobby this evening and vote against the motion. As it stands, it is nonsense.

7.55 pm
Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham)

I shall make some complaints in my relatively short contribution to the debate. First, I believe that there is an organisation which gets sponsored Members to meet, who exclude one Member at least who is fully qualified to join the meeting. These are the meetings of the sponsored Members of the Transport and General Workers union. A significant number of Members—they are all Opposition Members —get cash for votes. They have their election expenses paid so that they can get into the House. I do not know how anyone can say that that is not a personal benefit because getting into the House is one of the greatest honours for any citizen of the United Kingdom.

The group of TGWU Members excludes a member of that union who entered the House without cash for votes. I put it to you, Madam Speaker, that you should refer to the Committee of Privileges the issue that any group which sponsors individuals to be elected to the House should give consideration to accepting people who have no disqualification.

I oppose the amendment of the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), and I shall explain why. If one in three Opposition Members is sponsored—I think that virtually all members of the Opposition Front Bench are sponsored—we are beginning to see organisations buying people of influence, in so far as being on the Opposition Front Bench is a position of influence. I hope that the Committee of Privileges, with the membership proposed in the amended motion moved by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, will take account of the broader issues, which include cash for votes.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley)

Does the hon. Gentleman pay the political levy as a member of the Transport and General Workers Union?

Mr. Bottomley

Of course I do not. If I did, I would be qualified to vote for the Labour party leadership.

Madam Speaker

Order. I am sure that the hon. Member will now refer to the motion and deal with the names set out within it.

Mr. Bottomley

If you had asked me, Madam Speaker, whether I was qualified to vote as a member of the Co-op, I would have said yes. I am inclined to opt out of that as well. In fact, I did not vote.

I want to know whether an Opposition Member—not only those who have spoken so far—could have stood for Parliament without being a member of a trade union. Which Opposition Member now in the Chamber could have stood for election to this place, under Labour party rules, without being a member of a trade union?

Madam Speaker

Order. The hon. Member's argument hardly refers to the motion. He is a good debater, and I hope that he will follow the rules of the House and return to the motion.

Mr. Bottomley

The relevant rules require that, if someone is eligible to be a member of a trade union, he or she has to be a member to stand as a Labour candidate. If Opposition Members do not know that, they have not read Labour party rules.

If the House takes the view of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours)— [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman continues to interrupt, he will demonstrate that he feels that he is on dodgier ground now than when he was speaking. He spent 20 minutes saying, in effect, that if one Member was in a family who imported ormolu clocks from Italy and another was involved in a family wine business, if the one in the clock business gave up his interest in the business he would be qualified for membership of the Committee of Privileges, but the Member involved with the family wine business would be disqualified if he chose to continue to be so involved.

Let us say that the family who imported ormolu clocks sold the business and received £1 million for it, and had £100,000 coming in for doing nothing—that might be the Labour point of view—while the family with the wine business continued to trade. Would the continuation of the wine business disqualify the Member who was connected with it? I disagree with that.

The biggest disqualification of the Committee of Privileges is to have on it people who can be told what to do by the Whips. Those who cannot be told what to do by the Whips are the chairman of the parliamentary Labour party, as he is elected by his fellows, and the chairman of the 1922 Committee.

As a Labour Member, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South, has decided to substitute his judgment for that of Tory Back-Bench Members who elected my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) to be chairman of the 1922 Committee. Had my hon. Friend continued as chairman of the 1922 Committee, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South would no doubt have objected to him. Had I become chairman of the 1922 Committee—I am not volunteering for the job—he probably would have objected to me as well. It is far better to say that, if the customary practice is to appoint the leaders of Back-Bench Members, it is not for Opposition Members to object.

The kernel of the speech of the hon. Member for Workington was that people who earn money outside—directors, advisers and consultants—should be disqualified. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is not what he said."] The essence of his point was that hon. Members should withdraw from the Committee of Privileges in certain circumstances. If I have misdescribed what he said, he should let me know now; if he remains in his place I shall presume that I am correct.

Mr. Flynn

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bottomley

I shall give way, but I am not sure whether it is worth doing so.

Mr. Flynn

The hon. Gentleman may be surprised to find that it is educational to give way. The point that the Opposition are making is that money that comes into hon. Members' pockets for their parliamentary work and actions that they take within the House should be stopped. The hon. Gentleman is making a fair point—that no Opposition Member should receive money directly from a trade union. The Register of Members' Interests, however, shows that 14 per cent. of Labour Members receive money directly from outside—from trade unions or consultancies —and 85 per cent. of eligible Conservative Members receive money from outside. The Committee should consist of Members who receive no money directly from outside for their parliamentary work.

Mr. Bottomley

The hon. Gentleman cannot have been paying much attention during the past Parliament. The Labour party's health spokesman is sponsored by a health union and its transport spokesman is sponsored by a transport union. I hope that the Committee of Privileges will decide that this is the last Parliament in which that will occur. Why cannot Opposition Front-Bench Members give up their cash for votes and their union sponsorship while they are on the Front Bench? That is a challenge to them. Can they not get elected without the money?

They say that it is of no personal benefit. Why will they not say, "I will not take the money while I am a Front-Bench spokesperson"? If they intend to stand for the shadow Cabinet, they should give up the sponsorship. They may then be admitted to the Committee of Privileges in accordance with the prejudices of the hon. Member for Workington.

The critical issue is the fact that the Committee must produce a report on the newspaper aspect. I hope that the House will reject the amendment and accept the motion. I also hope that the Committee will produce a separate report on the newspaper aspect rather than an omnibus report dealing with membership, with the general circumstances to which you, Madam Speaker, referred, and with the newspaper aspect. I would like the chance to give evidence to say that Members who are appointed should take this final test: they should do only those things that they are willing to tell their local newspaper. If they are willing to say it, they can do it: they will then be in the clear.

8.3 pm

Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan)

I support the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), but I start on a point of disagreement. He said that no hon. Member had a vested interest in seeing the House brought into disrepute. I declare that I have an interest in seeing the House brought into disrepute. I spend a great deal of my political time trying to ensure that the House of Commons is brought into disrepute with the Scottish people. My modest efforts in that direction are often overtaken by Conservative Members who inadvertently do more damage to the House than I have yet been able to do.

Mr. Bill Walker

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Salmond

I may give way to the hon. Gentleman later, if he will contain himself for a few moments.

I shall make three simple points about this motion, but I shall be happy if the House, in its wisdom, ignores my advice entirely because the Scottish people will then continue to hold it in ill repute.

First, the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), who has left our proceedings for the time being, said that he wanted the Committee to draw up a code of practice to include a full cross-section of the House, reflecting all its interests, activities and foibles. That is fundamentally incorrect.

If people with consultancies, whose parliamentary activities may be influenced by remuneration from elsewhere, want to justify their case to the Committee, they should do so to people without consultancies. With respect to what the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) said, the same should apply to trade union sponsorship of constituency parties. If that issue is considered by the Committee, it should be justified to a Committee whose members are not in the same position.

My second point refers to the two or more hon. Members whose cases the Committee may consider. How could a Committee report be credible if the Committee is stuffed. full of hon. Members with consultancies, or Members whom the press could accuse of having a vested interest? If any hon. Member believes that a Committee report of that composition would be credible, whether or not they read Sun editorials, he or she must be blind, deaf and pretty dumb. To believe that would seriously underrate the anxiety and contempt illustrated by the public's reaction to the events of the past few days.

It is a simple point of logic that, if hon. Members want the Committee report to be credible, it should not be vulnerable to the attacks that we have already seen in the papers.

Mr. Bill Walker

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Salmond

I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman.

My third point is simple, and refers specifically to the right hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) and the subject of the amendment. I have heard the right hon. Gentleman described as the shop steward of Tory Back-Bench Members. I do not know whether it was his own description or one foisted on him. If the right hon. Gentleman is a shop steward, one would expect him, as in an industrial tribunal, to appear before the Committee for the defence rather than to be on the Committee.

I hope that the House continues to ignore those three simple points, and thus continues to be held in large-scale disrepute by the Scottish people. None the less, I suggest that the House pays attention to the amendment.

8.7 pm

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent)

Two assumptions underlie the amendment: first, that the only vested interest that matters is financial; and, secondly, that it is impossible for hon. Members, no matter how experienced, honest or sincere, to suspend their personal judgment while considering a matter of national importance or significance to the House.

It is perfectly clear that some hon. Members have a passionate commitment to certain causes. In the view of most of us, those causes frequently blind their judgment when they consider important matters, whether they are deeply committed to a faith, have had an experience that has coloured their judgment, or are under pressure from relations or friends.

Let us take a hypothetical example. If a Member of the House who is either still a member of a firm of solicitors, or has been for many years a solicitor, speaks about legal aid, how do we know whether he is speaking about legal aid objectively, or whether his judgment is coloured by his experience? It is, of course, impossible to know.

The reason why I believe that the House should be wary about trying to go down a path that, in effect, attempts to make people either saints or a type of eunuch, is that I believe that people want from the House the wide range of aspirations, beliefs, prejudices and occupations that they can find outside. It is a criticism of the House that, on the whole, the range of occupations in it is too narrow, and it is a great mistake for the House to go too far down the road of trying to define precisely what is and is not an interest that should be taken into account.

Secondly, I believe that it is common to hon. Members on both sides of the House that, when considering a matter, they suspend their personal view. How many Members of the House, for example, have been visited in their surgeries by people who, in their view, are despicable—unattractive, unpleasant people, with a cause to pursue of which they disapprove? However, because, at some point in the game, those people have been subjected to injustice by the system, it is our duty and our privilege, and indeed our job, to try to ensure that, at least in that narrow respect, their injustice is rectified.

The capacity to suspend one's personal view is therefore an integral part of being a Member of Parliament. I accept that some hon. Members have enormous difficulty in doing so, but, on the whole, the longer one spends in this place, the better one becomes at separating one's personal interests and the objective principle.

I believe that hon. and right hon. Members of the seniority of those who have been proposed for the Committee, including my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox), have arrived at a point where their objectivity can be relied on. If the sceptics on the Opposition Benches care to reflect, they will see that no circumstance is more likely to reinforce their capacity to be objective than the fact that they are under such intense scrutiny, and that their interests have been so widely declared and canvassed.

For those reasons, I would reject the amendment.

8.12 pm
Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

I have to declare a non-interest, in being a member of a trade union that is not affiliated to the Labour party, and I am not sponsored by any union.

The hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) is right, up to a point. One of the qualities that Members of Parliament should have is that of being able to distinguish matters in which they might have a self-interest from those that affect the interests of their constituents. Madam Speaker, you have asked us to view this matter in relation to the names on a list before us. I hope that what I say is in order, because I shall ask the questions that my constituents will ask about that list—the questions that they have a right to ask—and about the criteria that should be applied to Members who are on it, or perhaps not on it. I hope that that brings all that I have to say into order.

The public outside, and indeed even the scribes, may have misunderstood that the matter before us is one of privilege. It is a question whether anything is being done that interferes with the proper privileges of the House to do its work, and a question of protecting the public and our citizens. That is, as I understand it, what privilege is about. It so happens that we have not had a matter of privilege in the current Parliament, and the customary procedures for appointing a Committee on Privileges have been followed through, even though the specific matter that has now been referred to it is unusual. My first argument, therefore, is that we have, in a sense, a difficulty in our procedures, because, when we look at the list, we are not specifically referring to the problem before us, which has arisen from the behaviour of two Members, but appointing a Committee to defend the privileges of the House, which intrinsically are the privileges of the public.

My second argument is that the problem is not new. In the late 1960s, a Member of the House was referred to the Privileges Committee, or another Committee that was set up, because he was involved in a foreign Government. That Committee, under the chairmanship of the then right hon. George Strauss, reported on remuneration for services arising directly out of membership of the House.

Two broad solutions were canvassed; that there should be a register—which there was not then—and that there should be a code of conduct. The Strauss Committee came down on the side of a code of conduct, because it was felt at that time that the introduction of a register might not only be a safeguard, but be used as a means of license. Some people may feel that that may be occurring.

I shall read part of the conclusions of the Strauss Committee, HC.57 69/70. The Committee advocated a code of conduct, and the second paragraph was as follows: That it is contrary to the usage and derogatory to the dignity of the House that a Member should bring forward by speech or question, or advocate in this House or among his fellow Members any bill, motion, matter or cause for a fee, payment, retainer or reward, direct or indirect, which he has received, is receiving or expects to receive (paragraph 110). That was not adopted.

It so happened that, after other problems in the early 1970s, the solution of a register was adopted. I confess that, as an advocate of that, I may have been a little too trusting in what the hon. Member for Mid-Kent properly pointed out, because I regarded a register as protection for Members, such as solicitors, who perhaps ought to be in a difficult position, and as a warning fence, so that, if that fence was transgressed, it would be visible.

Perhaps it might have been wiser to have a code of conduct. I believe that my constituents, looking at the list, would apply the Strauss Committee's criterion, and if they did so, the list would be considered unsatisfactory in many respects.

8.17 pm
Mr. Rupert Allason (Torbay)

In my judgment, the names on the Order Paper should be trusted to uphold the traditions of the conventions of the House. There is great anxiety outside the House about the events of the past couple of weeks.

Before I go any further, I should declare that, as well as having been a journalist in the past, I have no outside consultancies or sponsorships, and I am no longer a member of the National Union of Journalists, but I am a director of my own small publishing business, which helps to publish my own books.

There is anxiety outside the House about the conduct of hon. Members, and I think that it is up to the Committee to decide exactly what took place, and whether the conduct of those Members is as reported by the press.

In your wisdom, Madam Speaker, you decided, when you announced your decision, to ensure that the Committee would not be a hanging committee to sit in judgment on those individuals, but that you would take the issue as a much wider one, and examine the conduct of the newspaper involved. Only some of the transcripts have been published so far. There is considerable disquiet outside the House—

Madam Speaker

Order. I take it that the hon. Gentleman is just getting into his stride, but I think that he has had long enough to do that. He must speak to the motion, which is very narrow. I hope that the hon. Gentleman has the Order Paper with him. The motion relates to the names of the members of the Committee. All we are debating tonight is whether those names are acceptable to the House or whether we should accept the amendment. That is the narrow motion.

Mr. Allason

I fully accept your guidance, Madam Speaker, as always.

I shall say a word in defence of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox), whose name has been somewhat traduced during the past few minutes of debate. As a Back Bencher, I can say that he is a doughty defender of Back Benchers' rights, and is widely respected on both sides of the House. Furthermore, he is no lackey of the Whips, and would be no part of a stitch-up by the Government Whips to whitewash this event.

There is grave disquiet about what has taken place, and it extends to members of the press, who are also extremely worried by the events of the past few weeks. I was trained as a journalist by, among others, Desmond Wilcox, and I worked with journalists like Barrie Penrose and Simon Freeman. We worked on exposing Whitehall cover-ups.

If I have a criticism of the names on the Order Paper, it is that there is no journalist on the list. If there were, it would provide an opportunity to examine the conduct of the journalists who participated in the exercise. Maurice Chittenden, a former member of the staff of the News of the World, is the "Insight" editor of The Sunday Times. His role in the affair will have to be examined.

Everyone in the House would agree that if, as claimed, six months ago an individual complained that he had been asked for a sum of money in return for a question, that would be a serious matter. Whether it is right that that occurred remains to be seen. If the list on the Order Paper included a journalist, it would be possible to examine the standards of journalism that The Sunday Times has exercised.

Dr. Spink

Does my hon. Friend agree that the members of the Committee would be well advised to consider the specific events first, and leave the general policy until later, because general policy made in the heat of specific events often turns out—

Madam Speaker

Order. The House is not giving guidance to the Committee, but discussing the make-up of the Committee.

Mr. Allason

The make-up of the Committee would be strengthened if it included a journalist, particularly somebody with access to Fleet street. I believe that, far from there having been research into a complaint that occurred six months ago, an investigation was conducted by The Sunday Times in a short time because Roger Cook's programme on Ian Greer Associates could not be shown. If the list on the Order Paper were properly to reflect the desire of the House to get to the bottom of all the events, there should be an opportunity to cast wider than the list.

The House has an important responsibility this evening. It has to protect its rights and privileges. It also has to ensure that its integrity is retained, and that there is confidence outside the House, not just in hon. Members on both sides, but also in the membership of the Committee. I believe that the Committee, as described on the Order Paper, will command that confidence.

I also believe that, if the report is published and if it is to gain widespread respect, it will certainly have to examine the conduct of The Sunday Times and its journalists with the same determination as it examines the conduct of the two hon. Members whose reputations have been so traduced.

8.25 pm
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

I had better declare my interest from the start. I am sponsored by the National Union of Mineworkers. In fact, the Bolsover constituency was sponsored long before I came to this place. It should be put on record that in many cases, but not all, sponsored Members of Parliament inherit sponsored seats.

I do not agree with the National Union of Mineworkers on occasion, and I vote against it in the House. Not long ago, Arthur Scargill said that the union was in favour of proportional representation. I said that I was not on board and I fought in the union to change the policy—and succeeded. When Jo Gormley got the National Union of Mineworkers to accept a pay policy under the Labour Government in 1974 and 1979, I told him to get stuffed and said I would not support a pay policy. He said that I would be de-sponsored if I carried on. I told him to get on with it. We must set the record straight about where some of us stand on this issue.

Way back in the 1970s, when the Maudling case and the Poulson scandal took place, we set up a Committee the same as the one proposed today, and had a debate about setting it up. It was set up with Members who belonged to the gentlemen's club—there were moonlighters and consultants. Some of them were from the Labour party, but the gentlemen's club decided that those involved should not be touched, even though councillors went to goal for lesser offences in the Poulson scandal.

We can hardly get anybody from the House of Commons to judge what the two hon. Members or others have been doing when relationships have been set up—relationships where some people belong to one party and some to another. Those with consultancies could hardly decide that those two hon. Members should be condemned, for the good reason that they are probably tabling questions by the barrel-load all the time, and nobody knows how much they are being paid for that.

It would be difficult for a Committee of the House of Commons to judge those two hon. Members. If a public inquiry can be set up to examine the conduct of Ministers in relation to the Scott inquiry, we should do the same on this occasion. It is not possible to have people in this cosy little place judging members of the same club.

Although I shall vote for the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) with alacrity, and vote against the setting up of the Committee, I do not think that that is satisfactory. We complain all the time about the police examining complaints about the police. We complain about all the organisations that examine their own affairs—we say that of Lloyd's and the City of London. Surely it would be wrong to agree to set up a Committee of Members of Parliament—irrespective of where they stand, although many of them are right hon. Members—to look into the conduct of other Members of Parliament.

I am not arguing merely because of the money aspect —people form relationships one with another that might have nothing to do with money. During the Maudling case, people said that some Labour Members might vote to kick Maudling out of Parliament—not many of us did: I think it was about 20—but might vote to keep Albert Roberts, as he was sponsored by the NUM. Of course I did not, but that is what happens in this place.

That is why it is important to tell the public that it is not satisfactory to have Marcus Fox or anyone with consultancies on the Committee so that it is overwhelmed by directorships. However we frame it, if we here are to judge two other Members of Parliament, the result is bound to be tainted.

My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is right to campaign to improve the Register and reduce payments, but I am clear that we cannot satisfactorily deal with the issue by setting up a Committee of Members of Parliament to judge other Members of Parliament. That Committee will not come up with the correct answer to satisfy the public.

8.29 pm
Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North)

The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has demonstrated clearly and convincingly that he will do in this House what he believes to be right. I wonder why he is not willing to give the same credit to other hon. Members.

I oppose the amendment because, if I correctly understood the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), and those speaking in support of it, they were basically saying that a Member could not sit on the Committee if he had an outside interest that arose directly from his membership of this House.

I find it astonishing that those hon. Members could even make such comments, when everyone knows that numerous hon. Members write articles in favour of specific matters or in support of special interest groups. Hon. Members regularly write columns in national newspapers, and they are well paid for doing so. To try to convince me and others that that work is not a direct result of their membership of this House is incredible nonsense. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) regularly writes vitriolic columns—I am sure that he is well paid for it—trying to denigrate this Parliament. He acknowledged that work, but he failed to acknowledge the fact that he is probably well paid for it.

I have never understood why, if someone is a company director for 20 or 30 years before he comes to this place, somehow, the minute that he enters the House, it is wrong for him to continue being a director. That is nonsense. It is no more wrong to continue being a director than it is to continue being a lawyer, a teacher, an economist or someone writing lengthy articles.

The plain truth is that we bring to the House all our different experiences, all of which are valuable. The members of the Committee should reflect that experience so that they can make their judgment on hon. Members knowing all the aspects of being a Member of the House.

8.31 pm
Mr. Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne, East)

When the issue first came to the attention of the House, we had to decide three things—should there be an inquiry, how wide should it be and who should conduct it? It is the Labour party's long-established view that there should be a wide inquiry, and that it should be conducted by the House rather than being an internal inquiry by the Conservative party. Following the passing of last Wednesday's motion, that is also the view of the House. The issue we have to decide now is who should conduct that inquiry.

I was very keen—my motion on Wednesday reflected this—that the House should look not just at the serious issues dealt with in the article in The Sunday Times. but at the wider issues that arise from the article and from your statement a week last Tuesday, Madam Speaker. The Committee will examine issues such as the complaint raised more recently about the way in which our banqueting facilities are booked by those who have interests in public affairs companies— [Interruption.] The matter is relevant, as I shall show later.

We are considering, as the public would expect us to do, not just how to make progress, but who should serve on the Committee. The public expect us to get on with that, and to do so with integrity. If someone has a long-standing involvement with a public affairs company—perhaps even one that regularly books the banqueting facilities—it would be difficult for him to consider with an open mind the rights and wrongs of providing the facilities of this place for what are essentially Conservative and business interests. I do not believe that the public expect hon. Members with extensive business interests to be judge in their own cause.

That point was very well made in the debate last Wednesday. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) intervened on me while I was speaking to my motion in as neutral a way as I could. I responded by saying that I thought that the point he had made had been taken on board by both sides of the House. That was my understanding at the time. I must tell my hon. Friend that, as the person who moved that motion, I have taken no part and have had no involvement in even the selection of names from the Labour party, let alone the selection of names from the Conservative party.

The issue that arises not just for the Labour party but for the Conservative party is to consider carefully who is to be appointed to the Committee. I have every confidence in the nominations from the Labour party. We have taken great care to nominate Members whom we believe the public will judge to be well qualified to serve, and who will be acceptable to the whole House. I have to say—this will not be popular with some of my hon. Friends—that it is riot for us to choose the Conservative party nominees. We cannot pick each other's sides. Certainly we would not allow the Conservative party to say who the Labour nominees should be.

However, my saying that does not relieve the Conservative party of the obligation to behave in the way the public expect, which is exactly the way that the Labour party has behaved. It is important for the reputation of the House that the whole Committee is free of the charge of conflict of interests. The ultimate judge will be the public verdict on the Committee's report. Anything less than the most vigorous inquiry and review, untainted by any special pleading, will be very injurious to the reputation of the House.

8.36 pm
Mr. Newton

You, Madam Speaker, may appreciate that I find myself in a position which, if not unique, is certainly unprecedented for almost a quarter of a century. I am responding to a debate on the establishment of a Committee of Privileges, and I am advised that it is the first time since 1970 that a motion on the membership of such a Committee has not been put and accepted forthwith.

That did not happen last night. I make no complaint about that; I am simply making the point that it is unusual for the House not to accept a motion along the lines of that tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) and instead to want to debate the merits of the names contained in the motion.

Another reason that I make that point is that there is an added difficulty for me. For reasons of convention, which the House understands, the motion is not in my name—although it is appropriate that I should speak to it—but in fact contains my name. I shall be a member of the Committee if the House accepts the motion, and even if it were instead to accept the amendment, because no one has been unkind enough to try to remove me from the Committee.

I echo a remark made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) about the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours): "Although I sometimes find him tiresome, I have a very considerable respect for him." The hon. Gentleman put to me a considerable number of questions to which I suspect he knows I cannot properly respond tonight, for the reasons that I have given. Not only am I proposed as a member of the Committee, but if the normal conventions of such Committees are followed, I shall be its Chairman.

Virtually every comment that has been put tonight and the specific questions raised seem to ask me to prejudge either the view that the Committee should take of its remit, the way in which it should work, or even, to a degree, the conclusions that it should reach. I simply do not think that it would be proper for me to attempt to respond to that against the background that I have described.

I simply wish to repeat what I said at the outset—that in my judgment the nominations reflect the established and accepted precedents, including the membership of both the chairman of the parliamentary Labour party and the chairman of the 1922 Committee. I believe that the proposed Committee—very much including my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox)—is one in which the House can have confidence in the discharge of the responsibility that it has laid on it. I therefore hope that the House will reject the amendment, and accept the motion as tabled.

Amendment proposed to the proposed motion, To leave out "Sir Marcus Fox".—[Mr. Mullin.]

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 43, Noes 158.

Division No. 302] [8.40 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Barnes, Harry McAvoy, Thomas
Benn, Rt Hon Tony MacShane, Denis
Byers, Stephen Mahon, Alice
Callaghan, Jim Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge) Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V) Morley, Elliot
Campbell-Savours, D. N. Mullin, Chris
Chisholm, Malcolm O'Hara, Edward
Clapham, Michael Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann Primarolo, Dawn
Corston, Ms Jean Salmond, Alex
Cox, Tom Simpson, Alan
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE) Skinner, Dennis
Dafis, Cynog Spearing, Nigel
Dalyell, Tam Wigley, Dafydd
Eastham, Ken Winnick, David
Etherington, Bill Wise, Audrey
Faulds, Andrew Wright, Dr Tony
Hain, Peter
Hanson, David Tellers for the Ayes:
Hardy, Peter Mr. Paul Flynn and Mr. Eddie Loyden.
Home Robertson, John
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
NOES
Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby) Fenner, Dame Peggy
Allason, Rupert (Torbay) Forman, Nigel
Alton, David Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Amess, David Forth, Eric
Arbuthnot, James Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham) French, Douglas
Ashby, David Fry, Sir Peter
Aspinwall, Jack Gallie, Phil
Atkins, Robert Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham) Gillan, Cheryl
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North) Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Baldry, Tony Gorst, Sir John
Banks, Matthew (Southport) Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Bates, Michael Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Batiste, Spencer Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Beresford, Sir Paul Hague, William
Blackburn, Dr John G. Hampson, Dr Keith
Booth, Hartley Harris, David
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham) Hawkins, Nick
Bowis, John Hawksley, Warren
Brandreth, Gyles Hendry, Charles
Brazier, Julian Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Bright, Graham Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes) Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Browning, Mrs. Angela Hunter, Andrew
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon) Jack, Michael
Burt, Alistair Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Butterfill, John Jenkin, Bernard
Carrington, Matthew Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Cash, William Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Chapman, Sydney Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Clappison, James Kilfedder, Sir James
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) Kirkhope, Timothy
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Coe, Sebastian Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Conway, Derek Legg, Barry
Coombs, Simon (Swindon) Lidington, David
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John Lightbown, David
Cormack, Patrick Lord, Michael
Davies, Quentin (Stamford) Luff, Peter
Davis, David (Boothferry) McLoughlin, Patrick
Dicks, Terry Maitland, Lady Olga
Dover, Den Malone, Gerald
Duncan, Alan Mans, Keith
Duncan-Smith, Iain Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Dunn, Bob Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Durant, Sir Anthony Mates, Michael
Dykes, Hugh Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Elletson, Harold Merchant, Piers
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley) Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Fabricant, Michael Monro, Sir Hector
Moss, Malcolm Stern, Michael
Neubert, Sir Michael Streeter, Gary
Newton, Rt Hon Tony Sweeney, Walter
Nicholls, Patrick Sykes, John
Paice, James Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Patnick, Irvine Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Porter, David (Waveney) Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael Temple-Morris, Peter
Rendel, David Thomason, Roy
Richards, Rod Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S) Thurnham, Peter
Robinson, Mark (Somerton) Twinn, Dr Ian
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent) Walden, George
Sackville, Tom Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Shaw, David (Dover) Ward, John
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey) Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian Waterson, Nigel
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) Watts, John
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S) Wells, Bowen
Soames, Nicholas Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John
Spencer, Sir Derek Whittingdale, John
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset) Widdecombe, Ann
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs) Wiggin, Sir Jerry
Spink, Dr Robert Willetts, David
Sproat, Iain Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David Tellers for the Noes:
Steen, Anthony Mr. Timothy Wood and Mr. Andrew MacKay.
Stephen, Michael

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put:

The House divided: Ayes 151, Noes 23.

Division No. 303] [8.52 pm
AYES
Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby) Duncan, Alan
Allason, Rupert (Torbay) Duncan-Smith, Iain
Alton, David Dunn, Bob
Amess, David Elletson, Harold
Arbuthnot, James Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham) Fabricant, Michael
Ashby, David Fenner, Dame Peggy
Aspinwall, Jack Forman, Nigel
Atkins, Robert Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham) Forth, Eric
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North) Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Baldry, Tony French, Douglas
Banks, Matthew (Southport) Fry, Sir Peter
Bates, Michael Gallie, Phil
Batiste, Spencer Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Beresford, Sir Paul Gillan, Cheryl
Blackburn, Dr John G. Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Booth, Hartley Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham) Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Bowis, John Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Brandreth, Gyles Hague, William
Brazier, Julian Hampson, Dr Keith
Bright, Graham Harris, David
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter Hawkins, Nick
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes) Hawksley, Warren
Browning, Mrs. Angela Hendry, Charles
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon) Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Burt, Alistair Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Butterfill, John Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Carrington, Matthew Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Cash, William Hunter, Andrew
Chapman, Sydney Jack, Michael
Clappison, James Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) Jenkin, Bernard
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Coe, Sebastian Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon) Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John Kilfedder, Sir James
Cormack, Patrick Kirkhope, Timothy
Davies, Quentin (Stamford) Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Davis, David (Boothferry) Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Dicks, Terry Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Dover, Den Legg, Barry
Lidington, David Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Lightbown, David Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Lord, Michael Spink, Dr Robert
Luff, Peter Sproat, Iain
MacKay, Andrew Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
McLoughlin, Patrick Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Maitland, Lady Olga Steen, Anthony
Malone, Gerald Stephen, Michael
Mans, Keith Stern, Michael
Marshall, John (Hendon S) Streeter, Gary
Martin, David (Portsmouth S) Sweeney, Walter
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick Sykes, John
Merchant, Piers Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling) Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Monro, Sir Hector Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Moss, Malcolm Temple-Morris, Peter
Neubert, Sir Michael Thomason, Roy
Newton, Rt Hon Tony Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Nicholson, David (Taunton) Thurnham, Peter
Paice, James Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Patnick, Irvine Ward, John
Porter, David (Waveney) Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Portillo.'Rt Hon Michael Waterson, Nigel
Rendel, David Watts, John
Richards, Rod Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S) Whittingdale, John
Robinson, Mark (Somerton) Widdecombe, Ann
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent) Wiggin, Sir Jerry
Sackville, Tom Willetts, David
Shaw, David (Dover) Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian Tellers for the Ayes:
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) Mr. Timothy Wood, and Mr. Derek Conway.
Soames, Nicholas
Spencer, Sir Derek
NOES
Barnes, Harry McAvoy, Thomas
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge) Mahon, Alice
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V) Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Campbell-Savours, D. N. Mullin, Chris
Chisholm, Malcolm Primarolo, Dawn
Clwyd, Mrs Ann Salmond, Alex
Cox, Tom Simpson, Alan
Dalyell, Tam Skinner, Dennis
Etherington, Bill Wise, Audrey
Faulds, Andrew
Hain, Peter Tellers for the Noes:
Hanson, David Mr. Paul Flynn and Mr. Dafydd Wigley.
Home Robertson, John
Loyden, Eddie

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved, That Mr. Attorney General, Mr. David Alton, Mr. Tony Benn, Sir Marcus Fox, Sir Peter Hordern, Mr. Doug Hoyle, Dame Jill Knight, Mr. Bill Michie, Sir David Mitchell, Mr. Alfred Morris, Mr. John Morris, Mr. Tony Newton, Sir Cranley Onslow, Sir Giles Shaw, Mr. Peter Shore, Sir James Spicer and Mr. Alan Williams be members of the Committee of Privileges.