New clause (Hansard, 19 October 1994)

Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 133 to 140, 164, 166, 174, 183 to 185, 273, 312, 324, 327, 334, 337 and 338.

§ Mrs. Barbara Roche (Hornsey and Wood Green)
I rise to raise a point of clarification. The amendment appears to go beyond what was agreed in this place. I should be grateful for clarification from the Minister. The decriminalisation that was going to take place appears to 393 have been muddled. Will the Minister give hon. Members an undertaking that the promises that were given by the then Minister, the right hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), to decriminalise these acts are still the position of the Government?
Will the Minister clarify the position of the Merchant Navy, which is governed by civilian employment law, and confirm that there is no question of criminality being extended to it or to the Royal Fleet Auxiliary?
Will the Minister confirm that these disciplinary offences will continue to be treated as such, that there is no suggestion of criminalisation and that the Government still favour decriminalisation?

§ The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) for raising these matters and I am happy to give the assurances that she sought about the effect of the words that my right. hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) used in another debate.
I am anxious to give her the assurances that she sought about the Royal Fleet Auxiliary and the Merchant Navy and I should be happy to have a further, more detailed conversation with her. If she would care to call on us, we should be happy to arrange it.

§ Mr. Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to refer you to a statement made by the Prime Minister yesterday at Question Time—

§ Mr. Alex Carlile (Montgomery)
In answer to?

§ Mr. Bell
In answer to a question put to him. He said: I am as concerned as any Member in the House about the highest standards in public life. He agreed that corruption was not something of which he would approve, in any circumstances. He further said: Our public servants and public institutions are acknowledged to be among the best in the world. In order to maintain that reputation in administration and in politics, wrongdoing will have to be rooted out wherever it is, and I shall seek to ensure that it is."—[Official Report, 18 October 1994; Vol. 248, c. 142.]
A statement will appear in The Guardian tomorrow, which I should draw to your attention, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It says: A top Westminster lobbying company were paid thousands of pounds to give to two high flying Conservative MPs for asking Parliamentary Questions at £2,000 a time on behalf of Harrods during the height of the Lonrho and House of Fraser controversy. The two Ministers referred to in the article are the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), the Minister now responsible for trade and industry, and the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith), who is a junior Northern Ireland Minister. They were both named in the article as recipients of payments passed to Ian Greer Associates, by Mohammed Al-Fayed, the owner of Harrods, on top of a £50,000 fee for a Parliamentary lobbying campaign.
394 Given the Prime Minister's statement that he would seek to ensure the highest standards of public probity, have you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, received any sign that he will make a statement to the House tonight or tomorrow?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris)
I am not certain whether the hon. Gentleman is alleging privilege, but, if he is, he knows the procedures of the House— he must write to Madam Speaker.

§ Mr. Bell
I am asking whether you have received any indication that the Prime Minister—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I have not received any sign from any hon. Member.

§ Mr. Garnier
rose—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. If this is a new and different point of order, I shall take it, but it had better be different. Is it a different point?

§ Mr. Garnier
Indeed so, Sir. Is it in order for a Member of the House to conspire with members of the press to introduce defamatory material under the cloak of privilege in order that tomorrow's newspaper may carry a report of that privileged occasion? Is it in order for Labour Front-Bench spokesmen to shoot the fox of the Liberal party, when the whole Liberal Front Bench, such as it is, has stayed up all night to make the same fatuous point?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I had assumed that hon. Members had come to debate the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill.

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
On a new point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you ensure that the matter of Ministers taking bribes at £2,000 a time is not shoved upstairs to some secret Committee but is dealt with by the House? The Government are riddled with corruption—they are past their sell-by date and it is time that they went to the people.

Several hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. Any further points of order had better be new ones.

§ Mr. Alex Carlile
rose—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Is it a new point of order? There seems to be some hesitation on the hon. and learned Gentleman's part.

§ Mr. Carlile
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You may be aware that earlier this evening I and some hon. Friends tabled a motion relating to the probity of hon. Members and of the Government in the conduct of public business. The motion asks for an inquiry—not involving hon. Members—to examine the matter. Is there any way in which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, can assist us in achieving that end?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
The hon. and learned Gentleman must be aware that I have spent most of this evening in the Chair. I have no idea what early-day motions have been tabled; nor do I wish to know their contents at this point.
Further consideration of Lords amendments adjourned.—[Mr. Conway.]