STANDARDS AND PRIVILEGES

HC Deb 06 November 1995 vol 265 cc610-82

That—

1. (1) Standing Order No. 128 (Select Committee on Members' Interests) be repealed;
2. (2) Standing Order No. 121 (Committee of Privileges) be repealed when the Committee of Privileges shall have reported to the House in respect of the matters of the complaints referred to it; and
3. (3) Standing Orders (Committee on Standards and Privileges) and (Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards) below be made.

Standing Order (Committee on Standards and Privileges)

1. (1) There shall be a select committee, called the Committee on Standards and Privileges—
1. (a) to consider specific matters relating to privileges referred to it by the House;
2. (b) to oversee the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards; to examine the arrangements proposed by the Commissioner for the compilation, maintenance and accessibility of the Register of Members' Interests and any other registers of interest established by the House; to review from time to time the form and content of those registers; 611 and to consider any specific complaints made in relation to the registering or declaring of interests referred to it by the Commissioner; and
3. (c) to consider any matter relating to the conduct of Members, including specific complaints in relation to alleged breaches in any code of conduct to which the House has agreed and which have been drawn to the committee's attention by the Commissioner; and to recommend any modifications to such code of conduct as may from time to time appear to be necessary.
2. (2) The committee shall consist of eleven Members, of whom five shall be a quorum.
3. (3) Unless the House otherwise orders, each Member nominated to the committee shall continue to be a member of it for the remainder of the Parliament.
4. (4) The committee shall have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of no more than seven Members, of whom three shall be a quorum, and to refer to such sub-committees any of the matters referred to the committee; and shall appoint one such sub-committee to receive reports from the Commissioner relating to investigations into specific complaints.
5. (5) The committee and any sub-committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, to report from time to time and to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the committee's order of reference.
6. (6) The committee shall have power to order the attendance of any Member before the committee or any sub-committee and to require that specific documents or records in the possession of a Member relating to its inquiries, or to the inquiries of a sub-committee or of the Commissioner, be laid before the committee or any sub-committee.
7. (7) The committee shall have power to refuse to allow proceedings to which strangers are admitted to be broadcast.
8. (8) Mr. Attorney General, the Lord Advocate, Mr. Solicitor General and Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland, being Members of the House, may attend the committee or any sub-committee, may take part in deliberations, may receive committee or sub-committee papers and may give such other assistance to the committee or sub-committee as may be appropriate, but shall not vote or make any motion or move any amendment.

Standing Order (Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards)

1. (1) There shall be an officer of this House, called the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, who shall be appointed by the House.
2. (2) The principal duties of the Commissioner shall be—
1. (a) to maintain the Register of Members' Interests and any other registers of interest established by the House, and to make such arrangements for the compilation, maintenance and accessibility of those registers as are approved by the Committee on Standards and Privileges or an appropriate sub-committee thereof;
2. (b) to provide advice confidentially to Members and other persons or bodies subject to registration on matters relating to the registration of individual interests;
3. (c) to advise the Committee on Standards and Privileges, its sub-committees and individual Members on the interpretation of any code of conduct to which the House has agreed and on questions of propriety;
4. (d) to monitor the operation of such code and registers, and to make recommendations thereon to the Committee on Standards and Privileges or an appropriate sub-committee thereof; and
5. (e) to receive and, if he thinks fit, investigate specific complaints from Members and from members of the public in respect of—
1. (i) the registration or declaration of interests, or
2. (ii) other aspects of the propriety of a Member's conduct, 612 and to report to the Committee on Standards and Privileges or to an appropriate sub-committee thereof.
3. (3) The Commissioner may be dismissed by resolution of the House.

And the following amendment thereto:

1. (a), in line 49, leave out paragraph (7).

Mr. Newton

As you have said, Madam Speaker, a number of other motions and an almost infinite number of amendments may be discussed with motion No. 1.

The report that the House is considering completes the work of the Select Committee on Standards in Public Life, which I chaired. Our remit was to consider the first report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life in so far as it relates to the rules and procedures of the House; to advise on how the recommendations relating thereto might be clarified and implemented; and to recommend specific resolutions for decision by the House. Although the focus in recent weeks has understandably been on the issues contained in our second report, I should briefly remind the House and people outside of the important progress that has already been made. The House has already agreed to create a new Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards working within a new Select Committee on Standards and Privileges. It has further strengthened the declaration rules by requiring that relevant interests should be indicated on the Order Paper in relation to questions, amendments and early-day motions, and it has endorsed the proposal that a new code of conduct should be drawn up by the new Committee and put before the House.

Further steps in the implementation of those measures will, of course, be taken today, if the House agrees the order of reference for the new Select Committee contained in motion 4, to which I shall return, and a separate motion that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) will move later on behalf of the House of Commons Commission concerning the appointment of a new commissioner.

Those are all important steps that have already carried the House a long way forward in responding to Nolan. In July, however, the House also accepted the Select Committee's view that more work was required before the House could take decisions in the matter of what should and should not be allowed, and the extent to which what is allowed should be disclosed. It gave the Committee a further remit, now discharged in our second report, to bring forward proposals by the end of the present Session.

In seeking to meet that tight deadline, the Select Committee has met 25 times since 19 July and a total of 39 times since it was formally established on 13 June. I am told and can well believe, as I dare say can the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), that no Select Committee has met as frequently and I pay tribute, briefly and wholeheartedly, to its members, of whom I see two close in front of me, for the time and commitment that they have given to producing both reports.

Especially in view of the fact that we have some disagreements, I want to express my appreciation for the way in which the Select Committee has worked—I am grateful to see the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) nodding. Even in the relatively few areas where there were disagreements—clearly we shall come to them and some are reflected in the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Dewsbury—the Committee always addressed its task in a positive and constructive manner, which made my job as chairman infinitely easier.

Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West)

In all those Select Committee deliberations, did it deal with a problem that it has faced ever since resolutions were introduced in the House on these matters: the refusal of admittedly a tiny minority to comply with any of the resolutions? What effective sanctions will be put in place for those hon. Members who raise two fingers to these Standing Orders?

Mr. Newton

It would be right to say that the Select Committee had quite enough to think about without devoting a great deal of time to that matter, but I think that the position is familiar to the House from episodes in the past and even from hypothetical episodes, as it were. Manifestly, it would be a matter for the House. Under the new structure, one would imagine that there would be a complaint to the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, which would examine it, as the Privileges Committee examined the complaint concerning so-called "cash for questions", and make a recommendation for the House, and that it would be up to the House to decide what, if anything, to do.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

Will the Leader of the House give way?

Mr. Newton

I will do so, but it is important that I should leave plenty of time for other hon. Members to speak in the debate and put my points in a connected way.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

Does the Leader of the House believe that Members of Parliament should have the right to arrange meetings with Ministers and perhaps attend those meetings in return for a fee or reward?

Mr. Newton

In a way, the hon. Gentleman underlines my point in my initial response to him, as I shall come to that matter later in my speech. It is covered by one of the motions and by one of the hon. Member for Dewsbury's amendments. Perhaps, therefore, I might turn to the motions on the Order Paper.

The first motion is perhaps the most significant—in my view, it is very significant. In our first report, we set out some of the problems inherent in seeking, as Nolan had recommended, to distinguish one type of paid outside interest from another. We pointed especially to the definitional problems associated with the concept of multi-client organisations and with terms such as "lobbying firms" and "parliamentary services". The debate on 19 July and our further deliberations have served only to reinforce those concerns. In the end, it was the Select Committee's unanimous view that those definitional problems were critical and that the difficulties in overcoming them were simply too great.

Instead—and again I emphasise that it is a unanimous recommendation—we have adopted an alternative approach which goes significantly further than that proposed by Nolan in dealing with those actions by hon. Members which, in the Committee's view, should not be permitted, irrespective of the person or organisation from which an hon. Member is receiving money. At the simplest level, that means whether it is a multi-client organisation, a single-client organisation or a single client.

In effect, we brought forward the work originally identified for the new Select Committee in the next Session and reviewed the current 1947 resolution—of which I suspect many hon. Members were unaware before Nolan reminded us of it, and which, as Nolan said, has given rise to confusion when read alongside other resolutions that the House has passed.

Mr. Marlow

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Newton

I will, but I ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind what I said earlier.

Mr. Marlow

I do not want to be controversial, but because of the way that the first resolution is written it appears that, for example, a farmer who is in receipt of money from Brussels through the common agricultural policy would not be able to discuss agricultural policy with the National Farmers Union and then engage in debate in this House. That is one example, but many others flow from the resolution. I believe that it is far more far-reaching than my right hon. Friend thinks. Will he consider that matter very deeply before he replies to the debate?

Mr. Newton

Of course I will consider that matter and others. However, I must make the point—and I believe that I carry the hon. Member for Dewsbury with me—that while the report repeatedly says that we have not been able to deal with every conceivable question and issue that might arise—and there may well be a need for further guidance from the new Select Committee—I think—

Mr. Budgen

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Newton

May I at least first complete my answer to the last intervention?

I believe that I can say reasonably authoritatively that what the Committee was concerned with, and what it believed the proposed resolution to be directed at, is the question of payment by someone in respect of an interest, not in respect of an interest that someone has through his own employment or occupation. None of us would envisage that, for example, a farmer would be prohibited from saying anything on agricultural policy—although, having declared the interest, he may wish to choose his words carefully, as I am sure hon. Members do at present.

Mr. Budgen

Does my right hon. Friend agree that his answer clearly shows that making very important decisions by way of motion is unsatisfactory? It leaves the various guidelines extremely uncertain with, perhaps, matters then being decided on a more or less political basis by a Committee of this House. It is an unsatisfactory way to deal with something that should be dealt with by legislation.

Mr. Newton

I understand my hon. Friend's point, but I have to tell him straightforwardly that I do not agree with him. At some stage, we may need to consider whether some sort of legislation is required, but quite frankly an attempt to deal with all the problems that Nolan wrestled with, that the Committee has wrestled with and that the new Select Committee will find itself wrestling with from time to time by defining and tying up everything in an Act of Parliament or a set of regulations would be a prescription for disaster. What we have proposed will enable the House to operate with a degree of flexibility in certain circumstances, not all of which can be foreseen.

Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)

rose—

Mr. Newton

If I continue to give way, there will be hardly any time for others to speak. Hon. Members are aware that usually I am very generous at giving way. However, on this occasion I beg them to recognise that we have three hours for a very important debate. It is important that a connected case should be made and hon. Members then have an opportunity to make their points.

Mr. Banks

I am deeply grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I need to ask him a question.

Mr. Marlow

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. My right hon. Friend said that he is constrained because we have only three hours for debate. If the mood of the House is that the debate should be longer, what can the House do about it? It is not enough time.

Madam Speaker

The motion was placed on the Order Paper on Friday. The hon. Gentleman and others should have been in the House on Friday to object to it if they wanted more time today.

Mr. Banks

Will the Leader of the House explain what my situation would be? I receive support from the International Fund for Animal Welfare, in respect of which I employ an additional member of staff. If I continue to do so, would I be prevented by the amendment to the 1947 resolution from initiating debates, asking—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Conservative Members should shut up a minute and let me hear it from the Leader of the House. Would I be prevented from asking questions and introducing Bills or early-day motions? It is crucial to me to know the answer to that question.

Mr. Newton

If the hon. Gentleman were receiving payment, or a benefit in kind such as the provision of payment for a research assistant, the answer to his question would be yes.

Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan)

rose—

Mr. Newton

This must be the last intervention.

Mr. Salmond

Before the Leader of the House moves from that point, could he explain further to the House why he and the Select Committee found it impossible to define and act upon one of the strongest Nolan recommendations, that against multi-client organisations, when the Committee decided to pursue the distinction between advocacy and advice, which seems to everybody to be fraught with great difficulties of definition?

Mr. Newton

I shall make two brief points. First, as we said in our first report, in paragraphs that are reproduced in the second report, the concept of multi-client lobbying organisations is riddled with difficulties of definition. What is lobbying? That is not as easy as it seems, because lobbying, in a sense, is a basic part of all democratic politics.

Secondly, the Nolan report acknowledged that the matter raised questions about almost every large firm—public relations firms, law firms, accountancy firms and management consultants—and suggested some possible Chinese walls to be erected within firms which did not seem to us to be practicable. That is the main point that I would make. If I may generalise from that point, while, of course, there are definitional problems with what we have proposed—as there would be with any solution— there are, in my judgment, significantly fewer definitional problems with what we have proposed than there would have been with the endless series of distinctions entailed by the Nolan recommendations.

Mr. Roger Sims (Chislehurst)

rose—

Mr. Newton

I have already said that I have given way for the last time. This really will have to be the last time.

Mr. Sims

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. He will know that I raised a point on Thursday which he said that he would clarify today. He has not allayed my concerns. In its report, the Select Committee states: We are not … seeking to deprive the House of well-informed contributions from Members with experience or knowledge of direct value to the subject being debated. Is it not clear from what my right hon. Friend has just said that any Members with specialist knowledge cannot make such contributions if they are in receipt of any payment, be it from a trade association, a trade union, or, indeed, a campaigning organisation? That would restrict the ability of Members of Parliament to speak.

Mr. Newton

I have the very greatest respect for my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims), as he well knows from our contacts on a variety of matters. He reinforces the point that I made about interventions. I would have come to his point if I had not been diverted by so many interventions. I make no great complaint about that; then again, perhaps I do.

Our proposal is that the 1947 resolution should be extended to indicate specific kinds of parliamentary action which ought not to be undertaken for payment on behalf of outside bodies. These are advocacy by way of speech, question, motion, introduction of Bill or amendments to a motion or Bill. Nor should it be acceptable for one Member to encourage another to take those actions on his or her behalf—in other words, indirect advocacy in relation to payment. Benefit in kind is to be treated in the same way as cash. That covers the case of the research assistant of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). Payments to a Member's family are to be treated in the same way as those to a Member.

This is a major extension of our rules. I do not disguise that. Everyone is aware of it—increasingly so, I think. The House will expect me to say a little more about what the Committee sees as the practical implications.

The key to our approach is that Members should not be paid to initiate parliamentary proceedings or initiate them on behalf of clients to whom they are paid advisers. In other words, they should not advocate in Parliament the cause of outside interests from which they receive remuneration.

I now come to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst. This may reassure the hon. Member for Newham, North-West as well. As Lord Nolan's report said, there will be a natural tendency for hon. Members to advise outside bodies whose views, to a large extent, they share. For that reason, the prohibition on questions, motions and Bills applies only if they relate specifically and directly to the affairs and interests of that body. However, we were concerned that such a prohibition should not prevent contributions from being made to debate by hon. Members bringing the knowledge and experience gained by legitimate work as paid advisers, or in any other way.

For that reason, in relation to speeches, we have advised that it should remain entirely acceptable for hon. Members to speak during debates on a matter that affects the interests of an outside body with which they have a paid connection so long as they do not initiate such a debate and, as now, fully declare their interest when they speak. The report also says that, in such circumstances, the hon. Member will need to take care that his or her speech does not bring particular benefit to the organisation or individual from which the Member received payment. I hope that that explanation is at least some help to my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst.

As our report acknowledges, this is clearly not a matter in which it is possible to lay down detailed prescriptive rules for every circumstance. We have provided a framework within which a body of experience and practice can be built up. If the House agrees to our recommendations on the broad way forward, the interpretation of the new rules in particular circumstances would inevitably be a matter for the new Select Committee, with the advice of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. It will no doubt issue further guidance if it sees the need.

For the moment, I shall pass by motion No. 2, which is the most controversial, and deal with motion No. 3 on delegations arranged by hon. Members with Ministers, and the timing of the ban on advocacy to which I have just referred.

Mr. Sims

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his explanation. Although I understand the argument that hon. Members should not initiate proceedings, surely the word "advocate" means to speak in support of. To include the words "advocate" and "speech " in the resolution makes it appear to anyone reading it that an hon. Member may not speak in support of a cause for which he or she is being paid.

Mr. Newton

I assure my hon. Friend that that was not what the committee wished; nor is it what the committee regards the proposed resolution as meaning.

Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire)

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. If someone passes a motion in the House, what holds: the wording in the motion; or the intended meaning of the motion, as explained during the debate while that motion is taking place?

Madam Speaker

All hon. Members of common sense will read carefully what the Leader of the House is saying as well as take into account the motion on the Order Paper. Ultimately, many of the resolutions, motions and amendments passed today may have to go to the special Select Committee for implementation.

Mr. Newton

I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker, for that explanation. That is, indeed, the position.

Mrs. Ann Taylor (Dewsbury)

Will the Leader of the House confirm that the motion that he puts to the House today reiterates the existing 1947 resolution, which of itself bans paid advocacy—speaking for money—and that our extension of that resolution seeks to be more specific and illustrate the circumstances in which such a ban might operate?

Mr. Newton

That is absolutely right, and I am grateful to the hon. Lady.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst will acknowledge that I am explaining, as faithfully as I can, what was in the Committee's mind. I am sure that the indications that we have given will be taken into account by the new Select Committee in its interpretation. After all, it will be a body of Members of this House who will have listened to the debate and read our report. I give him the clear assurance that our proposals are not intended to prevent Members from speaking in a proper and balanced way, as I have outlined.

As for motion No. 3, the Select Committee recommended that where a Member leads a deputation to a Minister or official on behalf of a paid outside interest, that visit should be registered in the Register of Members' Interests to ensure maximum transparency. A minority on the Committee wished to ban Members from leading delegations, or arranging them where there was a paid outside interest.

That view will no doubt be reflected by the hon. Member for Dewsbury in one of the amendments that she has tabled. I can only say that it seemed to the majority of the Committee that the key safeguard was transparency, and that there would be no real gain—and possibly some loss to the taking of well-informed decisions—if Members who are paid advisers could not even seek to arrange a meeting, openly declared, in which points of concern could be put to Ministers.

The second element of the motion relates to the timing of the cessation of the paid advocacy. If I may, it seems sensible to return to that when I come to discuss the more controversial motion No. 2.

Before that, however, I should refer to motion No. 4, which, as I said earlier, proposes an order of reference for the new Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, and provides for the winding up of the Select Committees on Members' Interests and Privileges. If I say relatively little about that, it is simply because the matter was extensively covered in our July debate. The motion is closely based on the recommendations of our first report.

There is one significant point that I should make about the two existing Select Committees which the new Committee is intended to replace—I say it particularly with an eye on members of the Committee on Privileges. Given that the Privileges Committee is in mid-inquiry, the motion envisages that it should continue alongside the new Committee until that inquiry has been completed. I know that members of the Privileges Committee attach importance to that undertaking, so I should like to emphasise it.

The demise of the Select Committee on Members' Interests would be immediate—I am not sure how much regretted its passing will be by its members—and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) and his Committee for the work that they have done for us over the years.

I return to motion No. 2 on the Order Paper. I address first the issues on which the Select Committee was unanimous. The Committee was unanimous that, as Nolan had recommended, all agreements relating to parliamentary activities should be put in writing and deposited with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards so that he could ensure that they were wholly within the new rules banning paid advocacy.

We accepted the Nolan recommendation that there was no need for disclosure of employment agreements unrelated to a Member's role in Parliament. We did feel, however, that the requirement should include frequent or regular commitments, as opposed to merely occasional commitments outside Parliament, which seem clearly to arise directly from membership of the House: for example, an agreement for money to write a regular newspaper column or to compere a television programme. That is much more comparable with an outside job than irregular, infrequent interviews on particular issues.

The second element on which the Committee was virtually unanimous, although there was one dissenting voice, concerned the timing of the introduction of the new arrangements for depositing employment agreements. The large majority felt that any new agreements between Members and outside bodies should conform to the rules with effect from the beginning of the new Session—later this month. Members with existing agreements that conform to the new rules should put them in writing, if they have not already done so, and deposit them with the commissioner by 31 March next year. Members with existing agreements that fall foul of the ban on paid advocacy in Parliament will have until 31 March either to bring the agreement within the rules and deposit it with the commissioner, or to withdraw from it.

Whatever arrangements might apply to any individual Member, the great majority of the Committee believed that the new resolution banning paid advocacy should be in force for all Members from the start of the new Session. The great majority of the Committee felt strongly that we could not endorse a position in which there would be one group of Members who could advocate a cause for payment and another which could not.

Where

the Committee divided—to my great regret it divided, as everyone knows, on party lines—

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

The Tory party as well.

Mr. Newton

I regard that division as a matter of regret; I am not attacking anyone. It divided on the question whether contracts deposited with the commissioner should be open to public inspection, and should include details of the remuneration received.

Mr. Bill Michie (Sheffield, Heeley)

Will the Leader of the House give way?

Mr. Newton

May I please continue my argument in a connected way?

The opinion of the majority was in effect that the crucial issue was the need for the Commissioner for Parliamentary Standards, in fulfilling his duties, to know what an agreement committed a Member to do. It felt that the basic purpose was therefore achieved by the deposit of such agreements, but without the remuneration.

The reasons for that are set out in paragraphs 43 to 49 of the report, which I am sure that the House will have studied with care. However, I emphasise what I believe the majority of the Committee would regard as the two main points.

First, we felt that it was right to consider the issues of restriction of activity, so to speak, and disclosure together—as, indeed, Nolan had done—in the light of the fact that the whole Committee had agreed on an overall approach radically different from that recommended by Nolan. Nolan had concluded against the distinction between advocacy and advice on which our Select Committee has agreed, and proposed only a limited ban on agreements with multi-client lobbying organisations. It took the view that more information about existing agreements, and more examination of the implications, was needed before a decision on a wider ban could be taken. It said that it was "in this context" that the recommendations on disclosure of agreements and remuneration was crucial.

Against that background of an overall approach very different from Nolan—and going very much further than Nolan—the majority believed it also necessary to consider the way in which the associated Nolan recommendations on disclosure should be looked at in that new and very different context.

Obviously, no question of disclosure could arise in relation to activity that was no longer allowed. Therefore, to the extent that disclosure of remuneration had been regarded as an answer to the perceived problem, the case on those grounds fell away if the activity itself were not to be allowed.

Secondly, therefore, in that new context, the majority felt it right to give greater weight to the difficulty of drawing a fair and sustainable line between activity for which remuneration would have to be disclosed and activity for which it would not. The point is perhaps most clearly illustrated by the Nolan report's reference to financial benefits that Members receive as a consequence of being elected". That would manifestly go much wider than the type of agreements that we have been considering and would, for example, obviously embrace the great majority of payments made to Members for newspaper articles, broadcasting and lecturing. The vast majority of those arise from being a Member of Parliament.

Nor is it hard to think of other issues on which argument would increasingly arise. I simply quote the Committee's conclusion.

Mr. Bill Michie

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Newton

I will give way to enable me to find the Committee's conclusion.

Mr. Michie

I am grateful to the Leader of the House. In the course of many years, this place has passed legislation that has forced local government to be open, honest and above board. Not so long ago, the Government took away the right to silence of suspects, on the grounds that they had nothing to hide. At the Tory party conference, the party discussed the business of introducing identity cards to recipients of benefit because, if one has nothing to hide, one has nothing to fear. What do we have to fear by ending the right to silence in the House?

Mr. Newton

To judge from some of the posters that I have seen on television, the hon. Member for Dewsbury may make a similar argument. I believe that it would be right for me to leave the hon. Gentleman to make his own speech, if he wishes, rather than to discuss that now.

Dr. John Reid (Motherwell, North)

rose—

Mr. Newton

No; I will not give way any more. I said that I wanted only to quote the Committee's conclusion. I quote paragraph 49, which I believe is the only part of our report that I shall read out again: In reality we judge that the real choice is between the view that compulsory disclosure of remuneration for legitimate activity is an unjustified intrusion, and the view that full disclosure of all income—in effect, the publication of the tax return—should be required. Nolan concluded that 'no-one has put a convincing case' for full disclosure. The majority of the Committee agree with that.

Mrs. Ann Taylor

On that subject, which is especially important, I have heard Conservative Members suggest that our amendment would require the publication of tax returns. Will the Leader of the House confirm that no member of the Select Committee advocated that course of action, and that the amendments that we are debating tonight do not say that we should go down that path?

Mr. Newton

I have no desire to mislead anyone. It is certainly the case that no proposition of that type was put to the Committee or argued in the Committee, and I understand that the hon. Lady's amendments, which I believe would give rise to the growing distinctional problems that I have mentioned, would certainly not take us in one leap to full disclosure of tax returns.

I conclude by saying that on that, as in every other matter before the House in the debate, it is for the judgment of Members to decide. However, what I claim for the Select Committee is that, taken together, our two reports constitute the most significant strengthening of our rules for decades—certainly since the register was introduced in 1974, and in my opinion for much longer than that.

Our proposals are designed to balance the overriding duty of Members to serve their constituents without undue hindrance, with the necessary safeguards that our freedoms in the House should not be abused. I believe that our proposals stand together as a carefully thought out and comprehensive package, and I invite the House to endorse it by voting for all the resolutions in my name.

4.45 pm

Mrs. Ann Taylor (Dewsbury)

I start by declaring, as always, the interests that I have that appear on page 129 of the Register of Members' Interests—my sponsorship by the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union, the fact that I am an adviser to the Association of Teachers and Lecturers and the fact that Unison has in the past helped with my office costs. Not included in the register, because it was a late addition, was the gift of football tickets to my family earlier this year.

I mentioned the interests that I have, not only because it is right that any Member speaking in the debate should do so but because it is obvious from the interests I have that I am affected by the amendment on disclosure that stands in my name and that of Members from other parties in the House. I shall speak specifically to that amendment in a few moments, but I want to make it clear that I am affected by that, as are hon. Members who I believe will join me in the Lobby tonight.

I do not want to go over the whole history of how we come to be debating the subject today. We are short of time and I believe that the whole House is aware that it is an important issue, in terms of the confidence that people can have in Parliament and of the matters that arose from the "sleaze factor", as it was sometimes called.

I simply recall the very end of our most recent debate on that issue in the House, when some Members, such as the hon. Members for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) and for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), said that they agreed with the principle of disclosure but wanted more work on the detail of the way in which that would operate to be carried out by the Select Committee.

It is interesting to note, and we should remember, that paragraph 69 of the Nolan committee report says that, of those Members of whom Lord Nolan asked the question, "Do you mind if there is disclosure of the income that you receive for parliamentary activities?" none said that he objected to that limited disclosure about which Lord Nolan was talking.

Mr. Terry Dicks (Hayes and Harlington)

Is the hon. Lady aware that, even if someone wanted voluntarily to record the amount of money that he receives from a consultancy, the House laws prevent that from being recorded in the Register of Members' Interests?

Mrs. Taylor

There is no provision in the existing register for such disclosures to be made in general terms, although many people who have sponsorship use the fact that they are covered by the Hastings agreement as a shorthand way of doing exactly that.

It is important that the House, when debating that issue today, remembers that many hon. Members on both sides of the House said that they supported disclosure of the amounts in that limited area relating to parliamentary activities if definitions could be found. The Select Committee resumed its work on that basis.

Mr. Tim Devlin (Stockton, South)

The Labour party in my constituency is putting out a statement that the hon. Lady is bringing forward a proposal today that all payments to MPs be made public in a register of members interests". Is that the position or not?

Mrs. Taylor

I hope that the hon. Gentleman has read my amendments carefully. The amendments, which are tabled in my name and those of other members of the Committee, do not call for any more than Lord Nolan's committee called for: the declaration should include amounts paid to us as a result of interests which we have and which are related to our parliamentary activities. I am happy to make that clear, and shall talk about it in greater detail shortly.

Mr. Marlow

I wish to clarify one issue so that we are aware of the rounded story. Is it true that, under the first motion, if any of the hon. Lady's hon. Friends were provided with office facilities in their constituencies by trade unions, they would not, in the House, be able to advocate the trade unions' position?

Mrs. Taylor

The issue of sponsorship—the interests and advantage of and help from sponsorship—is covered not by the first motion but by the second. The subject of sponsorship was dealt with specifically by the Select Committee, which made no changes to the existing provisions in relation to sponsorship, not least because most of us know that the 1947 resolution already exists.

Dr. Keith Hampson (Leeds, North-West)

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Taylor

I cannot give way—I have already done so. We are short of time and need to make progress.

I want to endorse much of what the Leader of the House said about the way in which the Committee operated. For the most part, we had constructive discussions and had to agree to differ on, I think, two or three points. Unfortunately, those points were critical, at least to my mind, which is why I have tabled the amendments.

I shall start with the 1947 resolution and return to the evidence that I gave to the Nolan committee some time ago. I said then: the ground rules that some Members—indeed, I believe the majority of Members—believe existed have certainly not been followed by some Members in individual cases. But, I continued: It is clear, and "Erskine May" has made this clear over the years, that certain actions are just not acceptable, such as Members of Parliament accepting payment or inducements for any kind of Parliamentary activity. That is how people interpreted the status quo, and it is an important starting point. The Nolan report makes it clear that that has been the case for many years—not just since 1947 but since the middle of the last century and, indeed, since 1695.

Dr. Hampson

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Taylor

No, I cannot give way. I must make progress.

The ideas behind the 1947 resolution are not new. I would therefore argue that the ideas behind the first motion which the Leader of the House moved today are not new. As he said, they had the unanimous support of all members of the Select Committee. The motion acknowledges the sound basis of the 1947 resolution and the fact that it dealt with the issue in principle, but it adds more detail, is more specific and gives examples of what cannot be considered as legitimate activity if a Member of Parliament is undertaking that activity for money.

Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley)

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Taylor

No; I am sorry, but I cannot give way as I want to deal with this point.

It is important for everyone in the House to realise that the Select Committee report stated that the list which is featured as an addition to the 1947 resolution is illustrative and is not supposed to be exhaustive. Those who want statutory provisions must bear in mind that it will be difficult to cite every example of what hon. Members cannot do. If we were to adopt that approach, we might create even more loopholes.

Dr. Hampson

rose—

Sir Terence Higgins (Worthing)

rose—

Mrs. Taylor

I shall give way to the right hon. Member for Worthing, who is a member of the Committee.

Sir Terence Higgins

The hon. Lady will be aware that the Committee spent an immense amount of time on many issues, particularly the subject of speaking in the House. The Leader of the House was right in saying that we were unanimously agreed on what we considered to be the right approach to that issue. But does the hon. Lady think that the motion as now drafted implements the Committee's intention, specifically with regard to paragraphs 21 to 26? I should have thought that there was a catch-all motion, in addition to the specific initial motion, that could state that the thrust of the Committee's report was also accepted by the House. If so, this particular problem would be solved.

Mrs. Taylor

The right hon. Gentleman, who served on the Committee—I think that he attended every sitting—knows how we wrestled with the problems. He also knows that we did not say that our report was the last word on the issues and that the new Select Committee and the code of conduct—particularly the code of conduct—would have to tackle some of the problems.

Mr. Nigel Evans

rose—

Mr. Budgen

rose—

Mrs. Taylor

I must make progress. I should have thought that the 1947 resolution—and its extension—was the least controversial part of what we are discussing.

Dr. Hampson

rose—

Mr. Evans

rose—

Madam Speaker

Order. Do I understand that the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) is not prepared to give way at the moment?

Mrs. Taylor

indicated assent.

Madam Speaker

In that case, the hon. Gentlemen must not persist, but must resume their seats.

Mrs. Taylor

The Nolan committee stated that the 1947 resolution formed the basis of the list of allowable activities. It also referred to a problem that has exercised your mind on occasions, Madam Speaker, and the minds of others in the House: the feeling that, since the introduction of the Register of Members' Interests, there has been a tendency to create the false impression that any interest is acceptable once it is registered. That is why we need to go further today and be more specific about what is considered acceptable.

I want to examine the question whether the total ban on advocacy, for single as well as multi-client companies—to which the Leader of the House referred and which is covered by our Select Committee report—takes the issue much further than the Nolan report, as some people have claimed. The question is whether that is a step of such fundamental importance that it negates the need to implement the other key Nolan recommendation: disclosure of paid advisory work.

I wish to explain to the House why we supported including single clients in the ban for two reasons. The first is the obvious one that many of us thought that single clients should be and were covered anyway under the 1947 resolution. There was also a practical reason: it is clear from the Select Committee's report that it would have been nonsense to ban advocacy by those acting for multi-client companies but allow it for those acting for single-client companies.

Paragraph 9 of the Select Committee report states: it would not be difficult to devise a system whereby a multi-client organisation could operate through a series of single-client subsidiaries, thereby circumventing the rules.

Mr. Nigel Evans

Some 167 Opposition Members are sponsored by single-interest groups such as trade unions. Earlier this year, I participated in a debate on the railways. Only five Opposition Members were present, all of whom were sponsored by railway trade unions. Does the hon. Lady think that that was right? Does she not think that those Members should be prevented from taking part in such debates in future?

Mrs. Taylor

I am sure that I do not need to tell the hon. Gentleman that none of those individuals would receive money directly for himself from those organisations. Nor should I need to advise the hon. Gentleman of his rights, whereby, if he thinks that any hon. Member, from either side of the House, is in breach of current provisions, he should report it in the appropriate way.

I say to the hon. Gentleman and to Conservative Members that the ban on advocacy was extended to single clients as well as multi-clients, to close a very obvious loophole. Hon. Members who rely on the argument that the Select Committee goes further than Nolan as justification for non-disclosure of money from Parliament-related work should be aware that that argument does not hold up.

There are potentially three types of paid employment that the Select Committee believes could involve Members of Parliament: paid advocacy, paid advisory work and work independent of the House. We have already dealt with paid advocacy, which was banned by the 1947 resolution. Therefore, the House proposes no change to paid advocacy in principle. It is important to state—I know that it will interest some Conservative Members—that there is no change to the work performed by a Member of Parliament that is completely independent of his or her parliamentary duties. Some hon. Members believe that such interests should not exist. So far as today's debate and the Nolan report are concerned—

Dr. Hampson

On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker

It sounds to me as though it will be a point of frustration because the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) was unable to intervene on the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor).

Dr. Hampson

I apologise, Madam Speaker, as I have seldom done this to the Chair, but the hon. Lady is slightly misleading the House.

Madam Speaker

Order. First, I know full well that the hon. Gentleman is not raising a point of order with me: he is frustrated because the hon. Member for Dewsbury will not allow him to intervene. Secondly, the hon. Lady is not misleading the House even slightly, so I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will rephrase what he has to say.

Dr. Hampson

Paragraph 30 of the Nolan report says that the 1947 resolution—

Madam Speaker

Order. What is the point of order to me? It must be to do with the Standing Orders or the procedures of the House. The hon. Gentleman is showing his great frustration at not being able to put his question to the hon. Lady. He must contain himself.

Mrs. Taylor

The report of the Select Committee and the amendments that we have tabled will make no difference to hon. Members' paid advocacy work—which is banned—and no difference to that work performed by a Member of Parliament completely independent of his or her parliamentary role. Paragraph 70 of the Nolan report says: We are aware that in a number of other countries the practice is to require full disclosure of assets and income. But it is by no means clear that full disclosure of financial matters unrelated to Parliamentary business is relevant to the public interest. No-one has put a convincing case to us as to why that might be necessary". That applies to the Select Committee report and to the amendments that I have tabled; it is misleading for anyone to suggest otherwise. We agree with the Prime Minister, who said last week that hon. Members are entitled to the same tax privacy as other people. However, that point is irrelevant to the debate this evening; no one is suggesting otherwise.

Sir Edward Heath (Old Bexley and Sidcup)

Will the hon. Lady help me on that point, to which reference is made in paragraph 38 of the Select Committee's report? The hon. Lady emphasised that, if hon. Members' work is not connected with Parliament, that is the end of the matter. Paragraph 39 goes on to state: The present rule is that all remunerated outside employment must be included in the Register". Why must such work be included in the Register of Members' Interests, if, as the hon. Lady says, it has no connection with Parliament?

Mrs. Taylor

It must be listed in the register under the current rules, which have applied for some time. There is no change to that category either as a result of the Select Committee's recommendations or as a result of my amendments.

Mr. Jim Lester (Broxtowe)

If hon. Members declare income from advisory or consultancy roles, people will falsely relate the time that Members of Parliament spend in those roles with the time that they spend on constituency work. Hon. Members who are part-time farmers, journalists or banisters may devote a great deal of time to those tasks outside the House, but they do not have to declare their cash receipts.

Mrs. Taylor

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will re-read the relevant sections of the report which relate specifically to parliamentary activities. The report also deals with protection in relation to constituency activities. No confusion need arise in that area. However, if there is any doubt in hon. Members' minds, the Select Committee is drawing up a code of conduct and, from 15 November, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards will be able to provide advice on the matter.

I turn now to what I thought was the most controversial issue—it is certainly the issue that divided the Select Committee. The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) referred to the issue of "parliamentary advice"—that is the shorthand term. The category embraces all the work that an hon. Member has only because he or she is an elected Member of Parliament. It is extremely important to remember that that category of work exists only because hon. Members are elected to this place. The Nolan report states: Full declaration is especially important in respect of paid activities relating to Parliament". The Select Committee recognised that the activities in that category are separate from independent earnings of Members of Parliament. In his motion, the Leader of the House recommended that all agreements that hon. Members have relating to parliamentary activities should be deposited with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards; in other words, the agreements are relevant because they relate to parliamentary activities. I support that view: I think that those interests should be registered. However, I think that we should go further and ensure that they are subject to full disclosure.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin (Colchester, North)

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Taylor

No, I must make some progress.

The Select Committee points out that Members of Parliament receive such payments only by virtue of their positions in this place: they would not receive them if they were not Members of Parliament. Therefore, our constituents have a right to know about the payments and they should be made public. If there is a distinction to be made, it is the one that has been drawn already—and that the Leader of the House commended to the House—between those agreements that relate to parliamentary activity and the independent work that some hon. Members perform. No further distinction needs to be made in order to implement the amendments that stand in my name.

The Nolan committee recommendations state that the amount of money that Members of Parliament receive is relevant because whether an hon. Member receives £1,000 or £20,000 from an organisation may influence that hon. Member when it comes to disagreeing with that organisation. That point is fundamental to our argument and to our amendments.

Some Conservative Members are concerned about the long-term consequences of going down the disclosure path. There have been many scares about tax returns and I hope that the Leader of the House has calmed some of the hysteria with his answer to my intervention. The scares about hon. Members' income tax returns being made public are no more than smokescreens and diversions from the central issue. I would go further and say that there is far more chance of seeing a real campaign to make hon. Members' tax returns public if my amendments are defeated this evening than if they are carried.

This is an important issue for everyone in the House. Hon. Members on both sides of the House resent the fact that all Members of Parliament are getting a bad name because of the activities of a few. The best way to protect the good name of Parliament and to rebuild public confidence in Parliament is to vote for my amendments this evening.

Several hon. Members

rose—

Madam Speaker

Order. I remind Members that speeches are now limited to 10 minutes.

5.9 pm

Mr. Tom King (Bridgwater)

I am sure that I am not the only hon. Member who regrets that we are debating this matter. There is no question but that the honour and integrity of the House is the responsibility of every individual Member. No matter how many rules are written, there will be attempts to evade them, and the integrity of the House is the most important issue.

The Nolan committee made some unanimous recommendations without dividing on party lines and I very much regret that the Select Committee was unable to do the same. If I hold one Member of Parliament most responsible for that, it is the Leader of the Opposition. I am sorry that he is not here today, although of course I understand why.

I have listened to the right hon. Gentleman holding forth about the need to uphold the integrity of the House and standing up for the moral position of Parliament. I have also read about the deal between trade union leaders and members of the Labour party, in which he made it clear that Labour had to be seen as squeaky clean and that any apparent financial link between unions and Members of Parliament had to end as soon as possible.

The key criterion of the new compromise deal that was put together by a working party of trade unionists and Members of Parliament over several months, during which many unions, including the Transport and General Workers Union, which sponsors the Leader of the Opposition, balked at the idea of losing total control over how their money was spent, was that, under the new system, the money paid to constituencies would not have to be registered. That is clear proof that, whatever rules we make, attempts will be made to avoid transparency.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. King

No. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker

Order. Mr. King.

Mrs. Ann Taylor

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. King

I shall give way to the hon. Lady, but she must be brief, as I have only 10 minutes.

Mrs. Taylor

I shall be very brief. As a member of the Nolan committee, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Labour party has been pressing for an urgent inquiry into party political funding?

Mr. King

As the hon. Lady will know, the Nolan committee referred to that issue. It referred specifically to the declaration of interests and recommended that we should examine not only political funding, but the financial issues involved. Many hon. Members missed the direct reference by the Nolan committee to the pay of hon. Members and the need to examine that issue.

The party political campaign that has been waged has distracted the attention of the media and that of many hon. Members from many of the most significant elements of the Nolan report. I pay tribute first to the Government's response to the recommendations that were directed towards them. In a singularly ill-attended debate on Thursday night, we dealt with the issues regarding retiring Ministers now being required to go to the Carlisle committee, the introduction of "Conduct and Procedure for Ministers" and the introduction of the code for the civil service—all important new developments.

The other success of the Nolan committee has been to address not just Members, but a wider public outside, including many organisations that deal with Parliament, on the importance of maintaining high standards. One does not have to be Secretary of State for Defence for very long to know about the intense lobbying by forces outside Parliament. Hon. Members on both sides of the House are involved with outside organisations that lobby extremely hard. There has been the growth of a rather casual approach in some quarters. I welcome the fact that the very existence of the Nolan committee has led to the recognition of the importance of maintaining high standards. I can already see signs of their wider recognition.

I dare suggest to the House that the most significant issues are not those that are currently most divisive and the subject of the greatest argument. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards will make a major and valuable contribution. I hope that hon. Members have had a chance to read his job description and to consider the role that he can play, together with the new Committee on Standards and Privileges and the code of conduct.

He will be helpful in the guidance and advice that he will provide, the maintenance of the register and his ability independently to investigate complaints. I trust that no hon. Member wants any genuine misdemeanour not to be properly investigated. The commissioner will also give proper protection to the innocent, who can be too easily maligned and smeared in the press without adequate recourse. In that respect, the ability to make an independent investigation is valuable.

Some of my hon. Friends are worried that we might have set up somebody who is unaccountable to the House. I said in a previous debate that the commissioner would be selected and appointed by the House, answerable to a Select Committee and able to make his own investigations, but would report the findings of those investigations only to a Committee of the House.

My only query—and I know the difficulties that the Commission faced—concerns the salary chosen for the gentleman in question and the days that it is thought necessary for him to do his work. I have the greatest respect for Sir Gordon Downey, but no Comptroller and Auditor General ever received such a total remuneration as he will now receive, of salary and pension.

I say to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that I hope that the code of conduct will proceed with the greatest possible haste.

I come now to the alternative approaches that are at the heart of the debate. In Nolan, we suggested that, with the exception of the multi-client agencies and consultancies, the best approach was to permit activities existing at present but to go for full transparency and disclosure. The Select Committee has decided unanimously that it can improve on that and recommends a total ban. I note from some interventions that not all Members are absolutely sure that the Select Committee has got it completely right.

We encountered real difficulties in drawing a distinction between advice and advocacy. We were concerned as to whether it might unreasonably restrict the perfectly legitimate expression of views on behalf of constituents or perfectly reputable outside bodies. We also doubted whether it could be acceptable to the House. If the unanimous view of 15 senior and experienced Members of Parliament is that it can be done, I am prepared to support it, but I worry about the responses by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) to the intervention about the motions—that a great deal can be done by a subsequent Select Committee, which appears to be able to amend the motions or give different guidance from what may be in the motions at the moment. If my right hon. Friend puts the motions to the House tonight, I shall support them, as they clearly go further than the Nolan committee.

I do worry about the speed with which this whole exercise has been conducted. I know that the Select Committee met quite a number of times, but at the same time I wonder whether what the hon. Member for Dewsbury has described as fundamental changes have been completely thought through. The proposed ban is certainly a major step.

As for disclosure, Nolan of course recommended full transparency in respect of contracts for work related to Parliament, and I believe that that was right, but with the new proposal—

Madam Speaker

Order. Time is up.

5.20 pm

Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland)

I was surprised that the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) saw fit to question the speed at which the Committee operated, since it was his committee which recommended that the changes should be in effect at the beginning of the forthcoming Session. That is why we met with such frequency and diligence during the summer recess. I also regret the somewhat partisan note that he injected. Efforts certainly were made to come to a unanimous view. My view, when the committee produced its first report in July, was that it was worth deliberating during the summer recess, despite the inconvenience, to see whether it was possible to reach agreement. That did not prove possible, and I regret that too.

I particularly regret the fact that the Leader of the House did not feel able in the event to support Nolan's core recommendation that there be full disclosure of Members' outside interests—including the explicit recommendation that they should declare in the register their annual remuneration in respect of services provided in their capacity as Members of Parliament. I do not propose this evening to go beyond dealing with the issue on which the Select Committee was unable to reach a conclusion unanimously, as, between them, the Leader of the House and his shadow have already deployed the arguments that the Committee put forcefully.

The issue that divided us was extremely important. The argument that proposing a ban on paid advocacy by Members dispenses with the need for disclosure of payments for parliamentary services is specious and unconvincing. Nolan did not tie its recommendation of disclosure to Members serving outside interests only as advocates. Nolan specifically rejected the argument that "actual remuneration is irrelevant". Indeed, the Committee described it as not at all convincing.

Nolan went on to say: A member who gets £1,000 a year as a Parliamentary adviser is less likely to be influenced by the prospect of losing that money than one who receives £20,000 a year. The scale of remuneration is in practice relevant to a full understanding of the nature of the service expected. We must dispense with the impression that some have tried to give: that moving towards a full ban on advocacy, or attempting to redefine the terms of the 1947 resolution, has in some way made it possible or acceptable not to reveal the money given to Members of Parliament in return for their advice.

Mr. Jenkin

rose—

Mr. Maclennan

I know that the House wants to hear as many speeches as possible, so I must curb my desire to give way to the hon. Gentleman.

I am not alone in entertaining some doubts. The right hon. Member for Bridgwater worried about the practicality of distinguishing between advocacy and advice; and perhaps more importantly, about policing the distinction between them. When I gave evidence to the Nolan committee, I drew attention to some of the difficulties. Someone giving advice about how to obtain an opinion from the House of Commons or from a Minister is coming pretty close to being an advocate.

These moves will not necessarily prove to be the final word on the matter, but it is still worth making explicit the prohibitions set out in the principal resolution before the House today, which describes the activities considered to involve advocacy. This, however, cannot be the end of the matter. The prohibitions do not discharge hon. Members from the explicit duty proposed by Nolan to publish the income that they receive for offering advice to clients as Members of Parliament.

More generally, this debate has to some extent unfortunately been cast in the mould of a discussion about standards in public life. The revelations of the past three years have made that inescapable, but this is not entirely a debate about political morality. It is also—and should be—a debate about the effectiveness of this House. It is not just the venal behaviour of—I believe—not very many Members of Parliament that should be under the spotlight. It is also the inadequacy of Parliament to discharge the functions required of it that has fostered the growth of lobbying, which in turn has led to the problems that we face today.

The huge increase in the volume of legislation, the inadequately prepared and often too partisan nature of that legislation, the inadequacy of the consultation on that legislation, and the speed with which it has been enacted and—frequently—repealed have all contributed to the growth of an army of consultants outside Parliament, whose business it is to get a fair hearing for the important interests of those affected by proposed Government legislation.

This is the problem that underlies the difficulties that we have faced. There has been a vast increase in the amount and speed of the business conducted here. The real problem is that the voices of those affected by what we do have not been heard; consequently there has been a demand for consultants and public relations people, who expend time and effort ensuring that those voices are heard. Conditions today are very different from when the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) was first elected. The volume of legislation has doubled; vast amounts of subordinate legislation are not adequately scrutinised. Parliament must take that in hand, or the process of overload will lead to Parliament breaking under the strain and Members falling foul of outside pressures.

I believe that the Nolan committee has offered us some medicine that we have no choice but to swallow, quickly, but there has been a systemic failure in this House and this Parliament that requires much more radical reform. We need a Great Reform Act to unpack our much vaunted Westminster model of government. That wider reform of the constitution is now necessary. The evidence that it is needed emerged, even before Nolan, in the strains and stresses of a system that is breaking.

5.28 pm

Mr. John Biffen (Shropshire, North)

My right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) described a sense of unease—almost distaste—about the nature of this debate. Obviously no one enjoys talking about his emoluments. But there is also a sense of frustration, in that, ideally, we should like to discuss the whole question of registration and financial disclosure and its regulation and enforcement. The context that that would give our discussions would greatly enhance them, but clearly that cannot be done.

I do not object to the way in which the debate has proceeded in recent months. The House will learn to treasure the stand taken by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) in promoting the desirability of a legal framework within which such measures could be resolved—a point picked out by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen). With a partnership like that, who knows how it can be countered?

The essential questions are the financial circumstances of Members of Parliament—particularly the undesirability of paid advocacy, and the alternatives that might be sought. In the 1960s and 1970s, I sat on the Government Back Benches and was fascinated by the exposition of James Callaghan in respect of the police and of Brian Walden in respect of turf accountants. It was a sort of dignity and impudence, and it was immensely impressive. No one thought that those Members of Parliament had demeaned themselves by that particular enterprise. No one thought that the House was being treated disparagingly.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is correct when he says that the mood of the public has moved on. What was accepted by the House in the 1960s and 1970s as being natural and beyond question would be of great concern today. If it is the mood of the public that is driving this debate—and I believe that it is—it is not just a matter of the club secretary looking in the suggestions box to see whether things could be done rather better. There is outside the House a powerful mood of anxiety about how Members of Parliament perform. The institution cannot be kept separate from its membership. We are right to react with caution and anxiety, and right to examine what reforms may be made.

Another aspect of the mood of openness is the way in which society outside Parliament is looking at its institutions, which interacts at one point with this debate. Under the Cadbury rules, public limited companies must enumerate directors' fees in their accounts. For individuals for whom such information is an area of fascination, payments made to Members of Parliament are already revealed in corporate accounts. That has nothing to do with the heroic standards of the House but with outside interests. Do not suppose that that can happen without a consequence for the House, the register and the whole issue of hon. Members' interests.

The money that a Member of Parliament receives as a director will be public knowledge but that which he receives as a consultant will remain veiled in mystery. That situation cannot be sustained. It has nothing to do with the decision that we are taking this afternoon but with other forces at work outside the Chamber, which require a different approach to disclosure.

Anyone who felt anxious about the fragility of today's decisions will have them reinforced by the debate. I do not make this point to my right hon. Friend in an aggressive or hostile way, but the moment we try to distinguish between advice and advocacy, we face difficulties. Time and time again, hon. Members have said how difficult will be the question of definition. My right hon. Friend used a delightful phrase—I believe that it was "definitionally critical", which was a Shakespearean touch. All distinctions will become untenable and will make this afternoon's proposals unsustainable. There will inevitably be pressure to produce more rational and extensive disclosure.

When I first entered the House, there was no Register of Members' interests. The House was as candid, open and honourable then as it is now—although I cannot say that this development is particularly encouraging. I cannot see the House turning away from the requirement for financial disclosure. If that is to come via Cadbury in the corporate sector, that itself will be the engine of change that will run through our procedures. Eventually it will extend to non-parliamentary interests. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) said, that throws up the whole question of what information should be entered in the register if it is not a declarable interest in respect of financial disclosure. Those are the problems over the brow of the hill, and they cannot be avoided.

The Prime Minister said that it was greatly his hope that the matter could be resolved in the sense of long-term implications. Of course he is right. Of course the House must resolve the matter, but it must do so more logically and clearly, and—I regret to say—on the far side of the general election, for the general election and partisan politics cast a blight across proper and sustained consideration. Tonight, we will do my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House a favour if we ask him to take away these proposals.

5.36 pm

Mr. Peter Shore (Bethnal Green and Stepney)

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) who has, as is so often the cases, something fresh to say about a subject that is already beginning to look a little worn. I particularly welcome the right hon. Gentleman's common-sense observation that right hon. and hon. Members disclose their earnings as directors but apparently do not divulge their income as consultants. That anomaly is becoming increasingly absurd.

I welcome also the right hon. Gentleman's reminder of the 1960s and of the relative rarity of consultancy arrangements in those days. That triggered in my mind an important reform recommended by the Strauss committee in 1969. If its major recommendation had been adopted, it would have avoided much that has followed. Strauss recommended a ban on the advocacy that is now part of the Select Committee's report.

I have watched from outside the activities of the Select Committee, and it would be churlish not to recognise the enormous amount of work that it has done in a short period. Despite the real controversy that still exists between different parts of the House, it is truly remarkable—particularly for anyone who attended the first debate on 18 May—that the members of the Committee unanimously registered agreement across a vast area in their first and second report.

I particularly welcome the proposed ban on paid advocacy in the form that the Select Committee described. I am pleased that the House will ban outright practices such as cash for questions, cash for amendments, cash for early-day motions, cash for' private Members' Bills and cash for speeches in the House. I am glad that those visible and objectionable forms of advocacy will be banned.

Let us be realistic—other forms of advocacy will continue. The most important of them is the access that Members of Parliament have to Ministers and civil servants through deputations, letters and private approaches. An alleged example of that form of paid advocacy was widely publicised in the weekend newspapers.

The main issue today is whether the extended ban on advocacy, which the Select Committee has put forward, destroys the case for declaration of amounts paid to Members of Parliament through the enjoyment of other advisory consultancies. The majority of the Select Committee believe that the case for that degree of disclosure no longer exists. A minority strongly disagrees.

The arguments have already been rehearsed—rather well, I think—from both sides of the House, but at this stage it is worth reminding ourselves of precisely what Nolan had to say on that matter. I know that it has been quoted before, but I shall say it again. At paragraph 69, he said: we believe that the public and in particular members' constituents have a right to know what financial benefit its members receive as a consequence of being elected … We consider it right therefore that remuneration should be disclosed in these cases The report dealt directly with the question: does the amount matter? It has already been quoted, but I shall re-quote it. It said: A member who gets £1,000 per year as a Parliamentary Adviser is less likely to be influenced by the prospect of losing that money than one who receives £20.000 a year. The scale of remuneration is in practice relevant to a full understanding of the nature of the service expected. By recommending that amounts should not be declared, the majority on the Select Committee has clearly retreated a considerable distance from the Nolan recommendations. A number of points need to be stressed. May I first remind the House that the Nolan committee was unanimous in its report and recommendations, and that among the 10 members of the Committee, there were, apart from a former Clerk of the House, three members with considerable parliamentary experience, representing the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democratic parties? Apart from myself, it included Lord Thomson of Monifieth, who served in this House as George Thomson MP, and the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), who is in his place today.

We all supported the proposal that there should be declared in writing not only the content of consultancy agreements but the amounts actually received, in bands of income. The issue was also raised specifically during the oral hearings of the Nolan committee, and its report noted: several MPs with whom we have raised this issue did not object to disclosure of remuneration so long as this related strictly to parliamentary services. The hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith), whom I see on the Conservative Back Benches and who played an active part in the work of the Select Committee on Members' Interests, was asked by a Nolan committee member whether his advocacy of greater transparency should be accompanied by the amount of Income that is attributed to that outside interest". The hon. Gentleman replied: I would have no objection to that. When pressed about the reaction of Members of Parliament in general, he said: I find it difficult to comment on that because I have not talked to the great majority of MPs about it. I simply give my opinion that most MPs would be happy for openness". The hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), Chairman of the Select Committee on Members' Interests, when asked the same question, replied, not committedly but quite fairly: I think there are arguments on both sides of this question". It is therefore quite wrong to allege that the proposal for the disclosure of amounts received is simply the work of partisan and ill-disposed Labour Members of Parliament. That is quite false; it is the considered judgment of the Nolan committee and of many people who gave evidence to it.

Mr. King

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Shore

I am sorry, but there is a 10-minute rule.

Of course I understand why there are strong objections to the proposals. According to the present and limited register, 168 Members of Parliament with 356 consultancies have paid agreements with outside bodies. The ban on advocacy will almost certainly lead to the termination of a number of those consultancies, and to a resulting loss of income to their recipients.

As for the rest, the great bulk of consultancies, there is inevitable disquiet, because publication will almost certainly lead to demands that Members of Parliament justify their consultancy earnings. If their constituents are satisfied that these activities promote the public interest and that the Members involved are able to combine those outside paid activities satisfactorily with their primary duty to represent their constituencies and to participate in national affairs, they will have little to fear, but those who cannot so satisfy their constituents will obviously be under pressure to bring the arrangements to an end.

These anxieties, while wholly understandable, do not outweigh the basic need to restore in the public at large confidence in their elected representatives in the House of Commons. The country has a gut feeling that Members of Parliament are here above all to serve them and the nation, and that anything that interferes with that must be justified rather than taken for granted.

The House will recall that the Nolan committee was set up in October last year to examine current concerns about standards of conduct of all holders of public office including arrangements relating to financial and commercial activities". No one should minimise the extent of current concerns about the standards of conduct.

Failure to disclose amounts earned from all Parliament-related consultancy agreements will inevitably lead people to conclude that Members of Parliament have something to hide and cannot justify their consultancy arrangements. Nolan was set up to restore public confidence in elected Members. It will not succeed in that task if the House rejects its major recommendation: to disclose earnings.

5.46 pm

Sir Terence Higgins (Worthing)

I declare the various interests that I have recorded in the register.

Ultimately, standards in public life will depend on the talent, ability, skill and integrity of those who are elected to the House. Nolan himself recognised that the issues that he was considering could not be divorced from the issue of Members' pay. I argued at column 1193 on 26 October 1995 that we are in a serious recruitment crisis in the House, not in the sense that there would be too few candidates to fill the seats but that the number of people suitably qualified to come to the House, and more particularly to be drawn from the House to become Ministers, is likely to be adversely affected if we continue the present position with regard to Members' pay.

The situation is such—I analysed it in some depth in my earlier speech—that, if we were to get Members back to the same relative position in relation to the rest of the country, in real terms, Members' pay would have to be doubled and Ministers' pay trebled. I believe firmly that we must also consider that issue in looking at and putting into context today's debate.

I suggested, since Nolan clearly has managed to establish a remarkable degree of independence, that the matter should be referred to him. He pointed out that it was outside his present terms of reference. I believe that those terms need to be changed, and we need a series of all-party discussions so that we can tackle that problem. The matter is urgent, because, if it is going to be done, it has to be done towards the end of this Parliament for implementation in the next. Given the interest in the debate today and the general atmosphere at the present time this may well be our last chance to get the matter sorted out. If we go on the same way in the next 10 years as we have in the past 30, I fear that in 10 years' time a large number of Members in the House will either be placemen or paranoiacs—[Laughter.] It is not a laughing matter. I believe that it is a very serious matter indeed.

It is generally agreed, certainly between hon. Members on the Front Benches and all the members of the Select Committee, that the Select Committee worked in an extraordinarily efficient way. We were frequently reported in the press to be deadlocked, but we spent very little time on the matter on which we were deadlocked because it was apparent that we were deadlocked and that the matter would have to be resolved on the Floor of the House.

We spent 25 sittings on this report, and 39 in total, trying to clarify the overall report of the Nolan committee. With the greatest respect to the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), I must say that we had a great deal of clarification to do. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House pointed out, we had to examine the whole issue. He dodged the issue of consultancies; he referred it to us, and we had to come up with what I believe to be a much more sensible solution in relation to banning advocacy. We have defined it pretty precisely—and to the extent that we have not, the new Commissioner for Standards and the new Select Committee will be able to smooth the rough edges.

I must express concern to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House in regard to a rather complicated point that arose in interventions on his opening speech. We spent many hours discussing how we were to deal with the problem of speaking if advocacy was banned; the results of our deliberations are recorded in paragraphs 21 to 26. I had assumed that there would be a catch-all motion saying that we approved the general tone of the report, or the general references in it, but that has not appeared.

There is a motion stating that the drafting will be difficult, and that there will have to be a code of conduct; but, if we pass the motion as it is currently drafted, we shall end up with an interregnum in which speaking in the circumstances in which we envisage it to be permitted will be prohibited until the code has been established by the new Committee. We are constrained by time, as we have been throughout our proceedings on this matter and as the Nolan committee was; but perhaps we can try to resolve that problem this evening.

We have little time for debate. I am sorry that we cannot have a series of separate debates on the various issues—the question of deputations, for instance. Let me conclude by picking up the points made by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney. The fact is that Nolan viewed the question of disclosing amounts in relation to the confused scenario that he envisaged. He did not envisage, as we do, the total banning of advocacy. Clearly, in that context the question of disclosure simply does not arise any more. One of the main evils—perhaps the main evil—with which Nolan sought to deal was the idea that people exert influence on this place from outside by paying money to hon. Members. We have now ruled that out, so in that context it does not arise.

As for the provision of advice, as the report points out, the amount paid is likely to reflect either the resources of the recipient of the advice or the quality of that advice; but it will not affect the performance of hon. Members in the House. If it does, it will be caught by the rules and suitable sanctions will be applied. Another point made by the right hon. Gentleman needs to be dealt with, however. He said that we should reveal the amounts that are paid to hon. Members as a result of their election to the House. The implication is that hon. Members are spending considerable time outside, dealing with consultancies and so forth, rather than being in the House.

We all know perfectly well what the position really is. Many hon. Members with large outside interests are among the most enthusiastic and hard-working parliamentarians; probably no hon. Member works less than would be regarded outside as a normal working week. On the other hand, there are hon. Members—including some of those who are keenest to suggest that Members of Parliament should be full time—who do not, perhaps, serve as much as they might on Standing or Select Committees. The amount that is paid is no indication of the amount of time that Members spend in the House. I believe that we are all full-time Members, regardless of whether we have other occupations outside.

Let me return to the main issue. I do not believe that disclosure is necessary. I disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen); I take his point about public limited compansies—no doubt his and my remuneration as directors are recorded in the annual reports—but I do not think that that justifies the extension advocated by Opposition Members. I hold that view not least because it is difficult to define whether a particular interest arises from membership of the House. Many hon. Members are now doing, on a much smaller scale, what they did before—probably in return for a much smaller income than they received then. Any statement of what they are receiving as a result of membership of the House should perhaps also take into account how much they were receiving before, and the amount by which their income has dropped as a result of that membership.

For all those reasons, I do not think that we should go along with the idea of disclosure of amounts. It has been overtaken by developments advocated by the Select Committee, which I consider a substantial improvement. Because disclosure has been the sole issue on which the press and, to a large degree, the Opposition have concentrated, we are overlooking the great extent to which we are tightening the rules with regard to the Commissioner, the new Committee and the banning of many practices which I—along, I believe, with many others—regard as completely wrong.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North said, the atmosphere has changed; but I believe that we should be able to support the changes that we are now proposing in front of our constituents. I hope that the House will not accept the Opposition amendment.

5.55 pm

Mr. Alfred Morris (Manchester, Wythenshawe)

Inexplicably, the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) excluded the possibility that Members of Parliament can be both placemen and paranoiacs. I think the House might have spared him a minute or so more to explain why.

I have long had the honour of being sponsored by the Co-operative movement, which does not make secret donations in any form—directly or indirectly—to any Member of the House. My interest is one that I declare with pride. There is nothing hole-in-corner about Co-operative sponsorship. No payment is made to the Member of Parliament and the contribution made to her or his allowable election costs is there for all to see. It is out in the open, fully disclosed and fully accounted for: a model of open dealing and political cleanliness.

Along with the hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox), I am also joint parliamentary adviser to the Royal British Legion, which is a wholly honorary role, both in my case and in his.

Full disclosure of what is spent by private interests to influence decisions of the House—in particular, what is paid to individual Members—is now essential to the health of our democracy. If the mandatory declaration of Members' earnings for work done in a parliamentary capacity for outside interests is not secured today, the battle for transparency must go on—and go on it will until no organ of opinion has cause to write, as one not unfriendly to the Government now does: Do Tory MPs realise how grubby they make themselves look? By fighting tooth and nail to keep secret how much they earn on the side, they give the impression they have something to hide. They should stop acting like Arthur Daleys and realise that the public has the right to know what extras they are raking in. That is not from The Guardian, New Statesman and Society or The Observer; it is from a leader in The Sun and, as every test of opinion shows, it reflects the view of the vast majority of the British people. They now no longer request, but insist, that backstairs payments for political favours must cease.

Mr. Rupert Allason (Torbay)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Morris

I have a time limit.

Mr. Allason

I shall be very brief. Those of us who advocate complete transparency accept what the right hon. Gentleman says, but does he agree that it would be a good idea to extend that transparency to payments to constituencies by trade unions'?

Hon. Members

It is already happening.

Mr. Morris

As has been explained to the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason), what he seeks is happening now. I am saying that backstairs payments for political favours must cease.

The response of some hon. Members will be to say that what they decide to keep secret about their outside earnings for parliamentary work is their business, and their business alone: that it has nothing to do with The Sun, with hon. Members who take a different view or with anyone else. I implore them to think again before we vote tonight. In particular, I ask them to stop being so self-indulgent, to the detriment not only of parliamentary colleagues but of the institution of Parliament itself. Taking and concealing money for parliamentary favours is demeaning to us all and puts an undoubted stain on the reputation of this House. That is why what they do in the matter that we are debating today is our business too.

The vast majority of the electorate also insist that everything that we say and do here must now be said and done in the open. As the House knows, I serve on the Privileges Committee. I made plain, from the moment the Committee was reconstituted in July 1994, my view that it should never meet again in secret except where, for some compelling reason, more especially one involving any possible breach of natural justice, it unavoidably had to do so. Yet we still meet wholly in secret even when there is no conceivable legal or other reason for so doing and even if a witness specifically requests to be heard in public, as Peter Preston did in the case of his appearance before the Privileges Committee earlier this year.

The Prime Minister has told me that his support for secret meetings of the Committee is based on respect for precedents. "That's how it has always been" is his justification. But in the light of the seven principles of acceptable conduct in public life that were enunciated by Lord Nolan—selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership—the Prime Minister's stance is no longer tenable. The Nolan committee puts precept into practice and I hope that its example will very soon bring the proceedings of the Privileges Committee out of the shadows and into the 20th century while there are still a few years of it left. That would help to cleanse the reputation of the House and, at the same time, improve the quality of justice that is dispensed by its most powerful Committee.

The public now want not only to hear talk about principles but to see them rigorously applied. They are entitled to see beyond the doors of the Committee Rooms of the House, to know what is happening as it happens, and to expect the Nolan committee to hark ever more loudly for the highest achievable standards in public life. I find it a matter for deep regret that the decision by the Special Select Committee on full disclosure of earnings that arises from membership of the House was taken by a casting vote, and that members of the Committee divided wholly on the basis of party allegiance.

I hope that, after this debate, the divide on full disclosure will no longer be one between right and left but will be seen in all parts of the House as one between right and wrong. It is not too late now for us to unite in the cause of open dealing and restoring the reputation of this honourable House.

6.2 pm

Sir Edward Heath (Old Bexley and Sidcup)

I declare all my interests as entered in the Register of Members' Interests. None of them has any connection with parliamentary affairs.

Madam Speaker was kind enough to call me in our earlier debate on these issues, and I was hesitant about taking part today. However, there are one or two matters that I should like to mention. First, with the greatest respect to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, the whole of this affair has been appallingly handled and today has been an excellent example of that. We are squashed into a three-hour debate on an important, controversial and complicated subject. There has been little discussion of the other major issues in my right hon. Friend's speech and in his report simply because there is not enough time.

It has not been possible to interrupt some hon. Members because they can immediately say, quite rightly, "I have only 10 minutes." This is no way to conduct the business of the House of Commons. I do not blame the Leader of the House, because he is under tremendous pressure, above all from Opposition Front Benchers who have been screaming the whole time for rapid decisions because they want a decision on the revelation of Members' incomes.

I adhere to all the points that I made in my earlier speech and, in particular, to what I said about the appointment of a commissioner. I do not think that the House altogether recognises the problems that will face him. Any political agitator in the country will be able to write to him making allegations about Members' conduct in the economic sphere, and the commissioner will be bound to investigate them. In the course of that, all the allegations will become public.

Mrs. Ann Taylor

No.

Sir Edward Heath

Of course they can become public. The hon. Lady cannot simply think that, when the commissioner starts investigating, the chap who put the allegations will not give them to the press. It will all come out and be published. If the allegations are irresponsible, there is no reason why they should be thrown to the public, and that is the problem that the commissioner will face. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman likes to indulge in unjustifiable allegations. We have had infinite examples of that, but perhaps he will desist for a moment.

I say to the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), that the proposed bands if incomes are reviewed are absolute nonsense. What justification could there be for that? Are we to say that, if an hon. Member is only mildly dishonest, we should do so and so, but that, if he is tremendously dishonourable, we should take certain other actions?

The hon. Gentleman is also wrong to say that, if an hon. Member had only his parliamentary income to live on and is offered £1,000 or £2,000, that is important to him. If he is a barrister earning £250,000 a year from fees, £20,000 is neither here nor there. We cannot categorise people's morality and honesty by trying to move financial barriers up and down. That is a great failure of his argument.

The argument with which I agreed was about the difficulties of industry, and in some cases the professions, in dealing with the Government. In this country there is an enormous gap between them, and people in industry do not know how to deal with Government Departments. I discovered that 30 years ago in the European negotiations, when I found out how close businesses in the other European Union countries were to their Governments and Ministers. Business men flew to Brussels to brief them while they were carrying on negotiations. If I mentioned that I was going to Brussels, business men would ask, "What for? Where is Brussels anyway?" That is a weakness in our structure and that is why business takes the view, "These people can help us and advise us and tell us how to do things." That is why the market has grown in such a remarkable way.

I shall now deal with the question of the public having a right to know. Of course people have a right to know about our public salaries, but we have a right to privacy. Why should people have a right to know about the financial rewards for our individual private activities? That does not stand up to any examination. It has just become a cry, "They have a right to know about us." The public have a right to know about our public position and public rewards, but not about our private activities—[Interruption.] That argument has gone out of the window. What is the point of publishing the private income of hon. Members?

Mr. Bryan Davies (Oldham, Central and Royton)

We are not proposing that.

Sir Edward Heath

In that case, the hon. Gentleman disagrees with the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), who says that it has to be published if someone is registered at the moment.

Mrs. Ann Taylor

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for allowing me to correct the impression that he is giving. I am not saying that everything that is registered at the moment should be declared in terms of the amount earned. At the beginning of his speech, the right hon. Gentleman said that none of his outside interests was related to parliamentary activities. In that case, none of them is covered by my amendment requiring disclosure of amounts.

Sir Edward Heath

The hon. Lady is on two entirely separate points. The first is about activities related to parliamentary activities, and they are registered. She went on to say that of course those that are not related must also continue to be registered. But what is the point of registering them if they are not connected with parliamentary activities? There is no relationship at all.

On activities concerned with parliamentary activities, what is the argument for publishing the private income that a Member receives? There is no argument for it—none at all. It is just that the Labour party wants and has always wanted to publicise what Conservative Members are earning because it has always had a doctrine of envy and hatred. We know it—we have been dealing with it for a long time. The Labour party cannot produce a single valid argument for publishing those incomes connected with parliamentary activities.

Whatever Nolan may have said, he justified this House as being a very honourable House, and so it is. No justification exists for getting into the complicated arrangements that are set out here. That is why I have continually objected to these things and to the way in which they have been handled here. There has not been proper time to examine them. The Leader of the House will agree that his Select Committee has not had proper time. It has had to sit all through the summer recess. That is no way to handle the business.

This House has always been known as an honourable House and Members have been known as honourable Members. That is the way that we should behave in future and the matter should not be tied down with the machinations of Labour Members. If we want to know their real purpose, one has only to consider their handout which was released last weekend, entitled "News From Labour". What does it say? They are going to write to 125 Members—I have not received a letter—and say, "You must tell us what your income is."

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock)

Read it.

Sir Edward Heath

I am not going to take up time reading out the handout—Labour Members have got copies anyhow. It says, "Unless you tell us what your income is, we shall come time and time and time again, demanding that you reveal what you are being paid." What does that mean?

Mr. Bryan Davies

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Edward Heath

No.

That means that the next election will be fought by Labour party agitators going to meetings and interrupting the whole time with only one question, "What is your income?" They want to fight an election not on policies but on envy, greed and dislike for the people in politics.

6.11 pm

Dr. Tony Wright (Cannock and Burntwood)

The most devastating paragraph in the Nolan report is paragraph 58, which deals with the failure of the House over the years to put itself into some sort of order. It says that, if the House had only done that, had attended to reports such as the Strauss report and to recommendations such as those of the Salmon commission in 1976 and had dealt with the need to have an effective Register of Members' Interests and bring it up to date, it would not have brought the present situation on itself. At the end of paragraph 58—this is the one sentence that I want to quote because it is a consummate understatement of the position in which the House finds itself—the Nolan report says: The overall picture is not one of an institution whose Members have been quick to recognise or respond to public concern. That surely is the root of all that we are talking about today.

I welcome the advocacy ban, because it is an attempt finally to get to grips with things that the House thought it had established almost half a century ago, in 1947. It turned out that it had not. The House failed to respond, which is why we are at this point today.

The ban as described in the motions is not effective enough without the amendment, because it leaves open all the ways in which, informally, hon. Members can still make representations on the part of interests for which they are paid. That cannot be right. That gap must be closed to make the ban effective, but it is nevertheless important.

There are two principles in all this. One is prohibition. The House should say clearly, without any room for doubt, that it is not acceptable for a Member of Parliament to do certain things such as taking money from outside organisations to promote causes in this place. That is what the advocacy ban will do.

The second principle is that of transparency. People must be able to see what is going on here, how we conduct ourselves and what we are doing. The right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) caught the essential mood of the moment when he said, "We have to take into account not what we say about these things but what people outside are saying." If hon. Members cannot recognise the country's mood now, they do not really understand what people are trying to say to them. People want to see that we are able to clean up our act. If we seem unable to do so, they will reach conclusions that will take us into ever more desperate circumstances.

I do not believe that some of the distinctions that the Select Committee on Standards in Public Life has tried to make are ultimately tenable, as the distinction between multi-client and single-client organisations was untenable: it fell away once it had begun to be scratched. The distinction between Parliament-related activities and non-Parliament-related activities is not effective and it will begin to disintegrate when the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards begins to consider it, which is why I tabled an amendment that I suppose stands as "the income tax return" amendment. It is not that—it does not require that—but that is what it stands as.

People want to know the answer to certain questions. First, they want to know whether Members of Parliament have other jobs and, secondly, if so, what those other jobs are for. Thirdly, they want to know how much they get paid for those other jobs and, fourthly, how much time they devote to them. No doubt our constituents and the people of this country are awfully naive about these things, but those are precisely the questions that they are asking of us. They happen to think that they elect us to he Members of Parliament and to represent them, and that it is a job in itself. If that is not true, now is the moment for the House to tell the people of this country that it is not true.

I notice that, over the weekend, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster stumbled into that matter when he said that being a Member of Parliament was a part-time occupation. I congratulate him on the direct way in which he approaches the issue, but, if that is the House's answer to those questions, let it answer openly and not in terms of arguments about spurious distinctions that do not stand up.

Having said that, I have been prevailed upon and persuaded that Conservative Members would not understand if I were to press what is called "the income tax return" amendment—amendment (n). They say that they are confused about all this and that their confusion will be increased if the amendment is allowed to stand. From the interventions that Were made earlier, it was clear that Conservative Members were mightily confused about what was proposed. In the interests of enlightenment and the reduction of confusion, I am prepared to withdraw the amendment.

On any view, we are at a moment when the House and Parliament must take a view on whether they want to start the process of fundamental reform, of which this is only a part—indeed, it is only the beginning and, in some ways, the least significant part—or watch themselves decline ever further in public esteem.

The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) said that people effectively had no right to know certain things. People do have a right to have confidence in their public institutions and, above all, in Parliament. At the moment, Parliament is getting dangerously close to eroding that confidence. What it decides today will decide whether it starts to restore it.

6.19 pm

Sir Timothy Sainsbury (Hove)

I hope that the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) will understand if I do not respond in detail to what he said, much as I am tempted to do so, because we are limited by time. I rather agree with those who have said that it would have been better to have a longer debate on these issues. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) said, that would have enabled us to put the issues into a wider context, and they would then have been more easily understood.

If we are to achieve our objective—which I hope we all share—of protecting the good name of Parliament, it might have been better to consider all the issues together. Instead, we are dealing with only one of three closely related issues—the advocacy or consultancy services provided by Members of Parliament in their capacity as Members of Parliament. I recognise, as have others who have spoken, that there are difficulties of definition. However, I believe that the Select Committee is broadly right in its proposals on advocacy and that the Nolan committee and the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) are broadly right in what they say on consultancies.

I have some reservations. Indeed, the hon. Lady's amendment would attract more sympathy from me—and, I suspect, others—if it dealt with several other issues. First, there is the issue of timing. Before we began our debate, several hon. Members tried to establish whether we could consider implementing full disclosure at the start of the next Parliament, rather than the next Session. That would be a fairer and simpler system, which would allow a new Parliament to start with a new set of rules. I am not saying that we should not implement other aspects of the Nolan recommendations immediately, but full disclosure, which is a radical change, should be introduced with the next Parliament. The Opposition would attract more sympathy if they accepted that.

It would be helpful if we could have a clear declaration from the Opposition Front Bench that there is no longer the intention to move to the "income tax return" suggestion of the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood, and repeated several times, from a sedentary position, by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). They rather contradicted the hon. Member for Dewsbury.

The second issue that I believe the House should be debating today is the need unequivocally to declare support for the Nolan committee on another point. I refer to paragraph 19 of the first report, where the committee states clearly that it is desirable for the House of Commons to contain Members with a wide variety of continuing outside interests. I sincerely believe that we will do this House and the country a grave disservice by any suggestion that all outside interests should be banned or fully disclosed.

The third issue that should be debated now has already been raised many times, but no more eloquently than by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins). I refer to the absurd and wide disparity between the pay of Members of Parliament, especially Ministers, and the salaries and remunerations that can be obtained outside the House. When I was a Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry, I found it bizarre to be spending much of my time in negotiation and discussion trying to help industrialists being paid five, 10 or even more times the salary of a Minister of State. Again, the House will do itself and the country a disservice if it does not agree now to deal with that issue before a general election and on an all-party basis.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing set out the reasons, facts and figures clearly. However, I want to contribute a few ideas. Perhaps it might be possible for pay to be improved in part by a much wider range of Members receiving additional payments. For example, perhaps all Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen, not just a small number, should receive additional payments. Perhaps additional payments should be made to the Chairmen of Select Committees, as they clearly carry a considerable burden.

I think that the whole matter has been a little rushed and we have not had sufficient time to debate it. We are not dealing with the whole range of issues. It might have been better if not only the proposals put forward by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, but those put forward by the Opposition had been taken away for more thought.

6.25 pm

Mr. John Evans (St. Helens, North)

I proudly declare that I am a skilled member of the Amalgamated Engineering Union, and have been since I was 16. That organisation pays the sum of £600 to my constituency Labour party as well as an agreed amount of my election expenses. Those are duly recorded in the candidates' return, and always have been.

I pay tribute to the Leader of the House and to my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) for the way in which, together, they led the Select Committee and worked hard to seek considerable areas of unanimity. However, I make the plea that never again should the House of Commons inflict such a duty on hon. Members and expect them to produce such a detailed report in such a short time.

I shall comment on two issues, one of which was raised by the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins), who served on the Committee: the absurd suggestion that if the House tonight agrees 'to the recommendation on disclosure of earnings, it will result in far fewer people wishing to stand as Members of Parliament. Indeed, according to the Deputy Prime Minister, it would change the very nature of the House of Commons. There was a story in The Observer last week, which I understand emanated from the Paymaster General, that if the House votes that earnings should be revealed, about 100 Tory Members will leave the House at the next election.

If there is any truth in the claim that a whole phalanx of Tories will stand down and that there will be great difficulty in attracting new candidates to take their place, that is a shocking commentary on the modern Tory party. Essentially it means that the principal interest of so many Tories is not to be elected to the House to serve their constituents or their country, but to get their hands on fat juicy consultancies to enhance their standard of living. I do not believe that there is a single word of truth in such utter nonsense. However, if senior members of the Government make such statements, it is hardly surprising if people begin to wonder what on earth the Tory party is up to.

The second point that I want to raise relates to delegations to Ministers, something on which the Committee spent some time. I made it clear in Committee that I felt it to be one of the gravest areas of concern in the entire issue of sleaze in public life. After all, if a consultant to a company can arrange a meeting for the chairman or chief executive of that company with a Minister of the Crown, he certainly justifies his salary of £5,000, £10,000 or £20,000. If the allegations in The Sunday Times about the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) were anywhere near the truth, the position is even worse than I suspected. It is not just a question of paid Members of Parliament fixing meetings for their own employers, but apparently individual Members of Parliament are anxious to meet clients who want to meet Ministers.

I can only assume that the statements of the hon. Member for Wirral, South in The Sunday Times are true, a newspaper with the background of The Sunday Times would not print them. The matter will be raised with the hon. Member for Wirral, South and he will have to deal with the occasion on which he was approached by business men claiming to be acting for the good of British industry. The hon. Gentleman said: And I say,'oh yeah.' In fact, what they are doing is try to use some sort of political input to advance a commercial interest. Nothing the matter with that. I have no complaint about that at all. But if it's a commercial enterprise, I'm commercial. That is the clearest indication—

Mr. Barry Porter (Wirral, South)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Evans

I wrote to the hon. Gentleman. I cannot give way because I have only 10 minutes. I will talk to the hon. Gentleman outside the Chamber.

Mr. Porter

I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for the courtesy of letting me know that he was going to raise this matter in the House. Perhaps he would be good enough the read the last paragraph of what The Sunday Times said. In case he does not have it, I shall remind him. It said that I am not in breach of any rules of this House or of any law.

Mr. Evans

The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on the kernel of the argument. If he is not in breach of any rules then, by God, the rules of the House need changing.

Of course, such conduct will be dealt with in future by the new parliamentary Committee and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. The need for such an expensive post—and it is expensive, at £78,000 for a four-day week—has been created by the activities of a handful of hon. Members who were willing to take cash for questions or expensive freebies in the Ritz hotel in Paris and by the Prime Minister's knee-jerk reaction to the allegations of sleaze and his establishment of the Nolan committee.

The Nolan committee established that there is widespread public concern about declining standards in public life. According to an opinion poll on page 108 of the Nolan report, 64 per cent. agreed with the statement: Most MPs make a lot of money by using public office improperly". Nolan also revealed that 168 hon. Members had 356 consultancies between them. The fact that most of those 168 are Tories revealed the size of the problem that the Prime Minister inherited when Nolan called for disclosure of the earnings of Members of Parliament.

The Prime Minister dealt with the problem in typical fashion by setting up another committee, the Select Committee on Standards in Public Life, and charging it with producing a report before the summer recess. It did; and recommended—and the House accepted—the appointment of a new commissioner, a new Select Committee on Standards and Privileges and a new code of conduct for Members. However, the Committee was divided on the issue of disclosure of earnings. Labour Members backed Nolan and, to no one's surprise, Tory Members on the Committee rejected disclosure.

The Chairman of the Select Committee on Standards in Public Life, the Leader of the House, dared not, at that stage, reject Nolan out of hand. After all, the Prime Minister had on 20 May, just two days after the acrimonious debate on 18 May, stated: I do not just accept the broad thrust of Nolan. I agree with it. The Leader of the House produced a formula for the debate on the Select Committee's first report on 19 July which stated that the Committee needed more time to study all the aspects of disclosure of earnings. The Leader of the House—he will not mind me saying this—was conducting a charade. The Tory members of the Committee had no intention whatsoever of supporting disclosure. In the Select Committee, we were not deadlocked over the issue, as the press frequently reported. The only discussion we had on the subject took about five minutes, when we had a vote on the principles of the five options relating to Lord Nolan's demand for disclosure of earnings.

The options started with full disclosure, which the Opposition parties voted for, and then moved, by stages, further away from disclosure until there was no absolutely no disclosure—and the Tories voted for that. The Committee then agreed, without further ado or debate, that both sides would write their own versions of what they wanted in the final report and that we would vote on them in the Committee's formal and final session. That is what we did.

The Tories have made a silly mistake. A third option was available to them which called for disclosure of earnings to the new commissioner only. If they had accepted that, many Conservative Members who are concerned about the matter would have been happy. They could have lived with that and voted for it. Of course, the Tories rejected it.

If the Tories win the vote tonight, they will again leave the British people with the impression that they have something dreadful to hide. That will not go away and, as the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) said, it will certainly be an issue at the next general election.

6.35 pm

Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge and Malling)

The two issues that have run through the debate are the declaration of earnings and the implications of the ban on advocacy, which, I believe, are much more profound than some hon. Members have suggested.

I will state my position on the declaration of earnings. I believe that the Nolan recommendations were poorly drafted. They certainly failed to clarify what was meant by "contract" and by "agreement". As to the basic principle, I do not have any objection on grounds of principle to the proposition that, where hon. Members supplement their income by providing parliamentary services to outside bodies, both the source and quanta of the sums earned should be declarable. I shall support that Nolan recommendation tonight.

The main issue before the House tonight is the implications of the declaration of the ban on what has been known as paid advocacy. The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) suggested in her opening remarks that the 1947 declaration against paid advocacy has had a material effect on the conduct of the House. In the more than 20 years that I have been in the House, paid advocacy has been alive and well throughout the House.

There have been any number of debates featuring hon. Members who have declared an interest in an outside organisation, whether a trade association or trade union, and who have clearly advocated the interest of that organisation in the course of the debate. I do not know that the 1947 declaration has had much impact, if that was indeed for what it was intended.

The so-called addendum that the Government are moving is designed to carry the matter further. That has some very real implications for what I believe to be the most fundamental right of hon. Members—the right to speak in our proceedings in a wholly uninhibited way and to take part in our proceedings on the same basis as would any other hon. Member.

I draw the House's attention to the fact that the motion before us, over which the hon. Member for Dewsbury skipped extraordinarily lightly, proposes to a huge extent the banning of the initiation of debates by those who receive not only payments but benefits in kind, direct or indirect. I should have thought that that would have been a matter of some interest to the Labour party. The Nolan committee reported that there are 221 hon. Members with sponsorships, financial consultancies or other sorts of financial interests from trade unions. I wonder why the Labour party is not more concerned about the implications of that ban on initiating debate.

Mr. Jeff Rooker (Birmingham, Perry Barr)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir John Stanley

I have only a short time.

My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said in opening the debate that, although such hon. Members may not initiate debates, they could take part in them. However, my right hon. Friend used a form of words whereby he said that, although they could take part, they would have to choose their words with care. He used the same expression in his interview on the "Today" programme last Friday. No Member of this House should be in the business of some form of self-imposed censorship—choosing his or her words carefully. I do not intend to choose my words carefully within the bounds of parliamentary expression. I am obliged to say what I think and be absolutely straight about what I believe is on the agenda.

Moreover, there is not merely to be an inhibition of power to be able to initiate debates. Paragraph 23 of the Select Committee's report postulated that hon. Members might, in some circumstances, be debarred from taking part in debates at all. That is a most profound inhibition and potential intrusion on hon. Members' right of free speech. The relevant sentence says: On the other hand, it is not practicable to lay down in advance, with the precision that a Resolution of the House would require, all the circumstances in which it would or would not be proper for a Member with a paid interest to take part in a debate. It will have profound consequences if we contemplate circumstances in which a large number of hon. Members were prevented from initiating debates, obliged to choose their words with care if they were to take part in debates and, in some circumstances, were unable to participate in debates at all.

Those are profoundly important matters, and it is not sufficient for the Select Committee simply to say that they should be left to the new commissioner, who is simply an official of the House, the new Select Committee or the new code of conduct. I do not criticise the Committee, which has done a Herculean job. It has had to work under a totally artificial time constraint, which. seemed to be dictated by the political requirements of the Opposition.

I see no need to rush these proposals, because the implications of a ban on advocacy for the most fundamental right of all Members of Parliament—the right of freedom of speech—must be thought through infinitely more carefully. We must know precisely who will be banned from what, which is not clear at present. The motions before us tonight should be withdrawn and the matter referred back to the Select Committee. It is for the whole House, and the House alone, to decide who will be banned from what in participating in our proceedings.

6.42 pm

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)

My interests are recorded in the Register of Members' Interests in the usual way.

It gives me no pleasure to say that we heard a mischievous and disagreeable speech from the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath). It was totally distorted, as is his article in the Evening Standard today. He gave the impression in his speech that all is well in the House, there is no need for change and we are an incorruptible Assembly. I would remind him—he is no longer in his place—how this matter began and why the Nolan committee was set up in the first place: it was the cash-for-questions scandal.

When we first debated the matter, I said that The Sunday Times should be not criticised for what it did. Rather, it should be congratulated because, had it not carried out such an investigation, those matters would not have come to light and the reforms and recommendations before the House today would never have been agreed to. Although I am willing to, and often do, criticise that newspaper, I believe that it was in the overall interests of the House and of parliamentary democracy to bring those matters to light. That is why I believe that what it did was justified.

It is important to recognise—the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup did not recognise this—that the main controversy over financial disclosure arises not from some sinister Labour party plot but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) said, from the Nolan committee's recommendation. The Prime Minister was right to set up the Nolan committee and had our full support in so doing, so it is difficult to understand why, having said when it reported that he would support it, he has now opted out.

He has caved in to Conservative Back Benchers—some of whom are here tonight; others are not—who were totally opposed to setting up the Nolan committee in the first place. They made it perfectly clear that they did not like the idea and saw no reason why the committee should be set up. Their agitation alerted the Tory Whips to a position that has led the Prime Minister not to support a crucial part of the Nolan recommendations.

On privacy, I believe that some aspects of our personal lives are indeed our business. There was no justification for the tabloids recently exposing some of the so-called "scandals", be they about Conservative or Opposition Members, because the public interest was in no way involved. Certain aspects of hon. Members' private lives have no relevance to their parliamentary duties. However, hon. Members cannot take the view, which some Tory Members wish to take, that financial matters are purely our business and that there is no reason why the public should know what we earn from outside sources. I do not accept that view for a moment. In other countries, such as the United States, far more information must be given than what the Nolan committee recommends.

I doubt whether many hon. Members would dispute that there is public support on the crucial question whether matters relating to parliamentary activity—those financial details—should be given. There is overwhelming support in the country, far outside the Labour party, for the recommendation. Conservative Members who are adamant in their opposition to it form a small minority in the country. Even the newspapers that would normally support the Conservative cause have not supported the Tory Members who are opposed to Nolan on this issue. I cannot but emphasise, and I doubt whether any Conservative Members could disagree, that among the public at large there is overwhelming support for giving information on activities that arise from our parliamentary duties, as recommended by Nolan, in bands. What is wrong with that? Why are Conservative Members so reluctant to give that information?

If we lose tonight's vote, it will be a defeat not just for this crucial amendment but for the House. It will demonstrate that we are unable to reform ourselves, which will reflect on us all, including those hon. Members who vote for the amendment. There will continue to be a general feeling in the country that we are all in this for ourselves and are all on the make. That would be a most unjust attitude to take, but it is undoubtedly being taken.

As some of my hon. Friends have said, if the amendment about financial disclosure is not carried tonight, the issue will not go away. It will come back in this Parliament and even more so in the next. It will be a continued sore within the parliamentary and democratic system. Why do not we demonstrate our courage tonight and admit that parliamentary reform of this nature is necessary? It is what the country wants and I believe that the country is right to want it. If it is justified, why should we defy public opinion in this way? I trust that, despite all the difficulties of getting a majority for the amendment tonight, it will be carried.

6.49 pm

Mr. David Wilshire (Spelthorne)

Even though I have no interests covered by the resolutions, I decided to become actively involved in the matter because I am fed up with being called a sleazebag. Every time that all Tory Members of Parliament are attacked, I am included, and quite frankly, it hurts. I have absolutely no doubt, however, that the overwhelming majority of Members of Parliament, whatever their political party, are decent, honourable and hard-working people. However, the public no longer think that that is true. They have reached that conclusion because of the well-publicised activities of a few hon. Members. Tonight, we have the chance to put that behind us. If it hurts us to do that, I am afraid that we have only ourselves to blame.

Because time is short, I want to confine my remarks to one issue—the disclosure of relevant outside earnings. I have come to the conclusion that we simply must disclose them. I admit that, in an ideal world, I would disagree with that and would not want to disclose such information; but we do not live in an ideal world, and we are not in an ideal House. In my judgment, the disclosure of relevant earnings has become the price that we must pay. If we do not pay that price tonight, the issue will come back, and next time the price will be higher. If we do not pay it then, the issue will come back yet again and the price will have gone up once more.

I understand the arguments of colleagues and hon. Friends—that privacy is important, and that the slippery slope beckons. My constituents and the contents of my mailbag tell me that the public do not buy those arguments. They do not believe that the Select Committee has gone far enough.

The recommendations of the Select Committee go further in respect of advocacy, and my constituents and everyone else I have spoken to are absolutely delighted about that. The Select Committee stopped short, however, of the Nolan recommendations on the giving of advice. The public will not understand that, and will not be reassured by that.

Recent history has left us in the House with no choice other than not only to be above reproach but to have 150 per cent. proof that we are so. That is why we have to pay the price that some of us do not like.

I should like to mention two matters of detail covered by my amendments. The first relates to the question of disclosing bands, to which my amendments (d) and (e) refer. I am against disclosing income in bands, for two simple reasons. First, the Select Committee report requires us to draw up contracts in detail, and to submit them. If we go for bands, we shall have to Tippex out the amount in the agreement and then write another letter. I do not particularly want to do that.

Secondly, I hope that it has occurred to hon. Members that, if we agree to bands and someone chooses to pay us £100 for giving advice, we will then be put in the band ranging from £1 to £1,000. You can bet your bottom dollar, Madam Speaker, that The Sunand the Daily Mirror will report that we have received £1,000, not £100, because we are in that band. I caution against bands, but I will not go to the stake for that principle.

My amendments (j) and (o) would make financial information declarable after the next general election. I must make it clear, however, that my amendments are not designed to put off the decision of principle until after the election. We shall take that decision of principle tonight, and we will then be left to implement everything barring making a declaration about amounts of money. I believe that that is the correct approach, for two reasons.

First, some hon. Members find a salary of £33,000 more than enough, and I respect them for that. Others come to the House, however, with certain commitments, and having made salaries well in excess of a hon. Member's salary. I respect them for that, too. There is absolutely nothing dishonourable about being in that position. If we expect those people to change the circumstances in which they find themselves, I judge that five months is not time enough for them to do so. I believe that they should be given until the date of the next general election.

Secondly, the declaration of that financial information should be put off until after the next election because of the antics of some on the Opposition Benches. I respect and agree with the official line of the Labour party that such available information is for the good of the House. Some Opposition Members, however, are already grubbing around for votes. Some of them are crowing merrily and saying, "Just you wait until the next general election, when we have the resolution. We will use it for party political purposes." I deplore such an attitude. By removing the temptation to acquire any such financial information before the next general election, my amendments enable the Labour party to prove that its members are not grubbing around for votes.

Tonight, the House faces a clear, straightforward and simple challenge: do we have what it takes to restore public confidence in the House of Commons? Are we prepared to swallow hard and pay a high price to redeem our reputation? Tonight, we do not have to decide whether we support the Government or the Labour party. Over the past few days, journalists have kept on asking me whether I intend to vote with the Labour party. One even asked me whether I planned to do the same as the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth). The answer to that was simple—hell will freeze over before I join the Labour party.

Tonight, I am not voting for the Labour party; tonight no one will be voting for Labour—people will be voting for Parliament. I am not voting against my friends and my Government, but I am voting against sleaze, and I urge the House to do the same.

6.56 pm

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

My constituency receives financial support from Unison.

I congratulate the Select Committee on producing an excellent report after a lot of work. In particular, I further congratulate it on going down the route that I think I might modestly say that I set out during the course of my contribution to the July debate, when I referred to an extension of the 1947 resolution.

In the seconds available to me, I should like to pose the House a series of questions. What does the House believe that the public believe having read the article in yesterday's edition of The Sunday Times? Does the House believe that the public would expect us to deal with the issue of hon. Members being paid to seek introductions to Ministers for their clients? Does the House believe that that is what the public want, or does it believe that we should leave the matter alone and not meddle?

As the resolutions stand on advocacy, we are doing nothing to deal with the problem that was highlighted in The Sunday Times. The practices of those who want to sell access to Ministers will remain under the resolutions before us tonight. I believe that that is wrong.

The two amendments in my name deal with access to Ministers. The first deals with meetings—their initiation and arrangement, and participation in them. The second deals with correspondence with Ministers. In so far as both would prohibit such actions by Members of Parliament, I believe that they should be carried by the House this evening.

Mr. Salmond

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. There is only one amendment on the Order Paper, amendment No. 2(p), which deals with one of the key issues in Nolan—the banning of multi-client lobbying public relations organisations having contracts with Members of Parliament. As you have not called anyone to speak for that amendment, Madam Speaker, how on earth can the debate be considered to be balanced? Is it the fault of the Leader of the House, who called a three-hour debate and so restricted the right of hon. Members to propose those amendments?

Madam Speaker

I think that a number of hon. Members will find themselves very disappointed and frustrated today because of this short debate. They have not been called or even been able to expand on the views that they already hold.

6.59 pm

Mr. Jeff Rooker (Birmingham, Perry Barr)

As a result of the debate, right hon. and hon. Members have become aware of the importance of the resolution of the House of 15 July 1947 relating to privileges—a resolution which probably no one has ever read and which probably was never drawn specifically to the attention of a Member on being elected to the House, because we have no induction procedure of any description.

I want to comment briefly on what the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) said. Although he supported disclosure, he asserted that motion No. 1, which is in the name of the Leader of the House—he appeared to believe that it was in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor)—on amending and adding to the 1947 resolution, comes to the House with a unanimous recommendation from the Select Committee. The motion is in the name of the Leader of the House, whom we sincerely hope will be supported.

If right hon. and hon. Members want to sell for money their right to initiate debate on any issue, that is up to them; they do it knowingly and accordingly must be accountable to their constituents. There is a marked reluctance to reform. That has led directly to a failure to keep pace with the attitudes, outside the House, of a more mature and alert electorate.

Lord Nolan and his Committee did not invent that problem. Nor did the media invent that problem. During the debate, mention was made of yesterday's Sunday Times. One thing must be made abundantly clear about that. If, a year ago, as I understand it from The Sunday Times, it believed that a Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter), had done something wrong, it was the duty of The Sunday Times to draw the matter to the attention of the Register of Members' Interests, not sit on it and use it in the scurrilous way that it did yesterday.

One or two hon. Members have asked why we should be treated differently from other people. The answer, I submit, is simple. We really are different. We are a unique group of 651 ordinary people, elected to carry out an extraordinary task on behalf of our fellow citizens. As a group—as an institution—we have lost a good deal of trust from, and are held in very low esteem by, our fellow citizens. We must win back that trust as quickly as possible, for the House, our institution of Parliament, is on trial.

I do not speak from the Opposition Dispatch Box for the Labour party, any more than the Leader of the House spoke earlier for the Conservative party. If we make the vote a party battle, we demean the House and ourselves. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may chaff at that, but that is the reality. I speak for those who accept the need for reform radical enough to show that we understand the public anxiety. That is what it is about.

The reform must involve transparency, to show that we are not on the make. Secrecy about earnings that are directly related to elected membership of the House sends a message that we are on the make. As the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) said, that taints us with sleaze. I genuinely believe that transparency will sterilise the sleaze argument once and for all.

The right hon. Member for Hove (Sir T. Sainsbury) made an interesting and constructive speech. He mentioned a couple of issues that deserve a response from the Opposition, and certainly from the person on the Opposition Dispatch Box who is winding up the debate. We chose the amendments to operate from the new Session on 15 November, simply to stay as near in line with Lord Nolan's Committee's proposals as possible. We deliberately sought not to deviate from the Nolan Committee report, although I accept that the right hon. Gentleman's argument has validity.

I also want to say to the right hon. Member for Hove, on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury and myself—for I do not speak for the Labour party on that subject but I know that I speak for a considerable number of Opposition Members—that we have no long-term aim to abolish outside interests or to seek disclosure of an hon. Member's total income. We have no long-term agenda in that respect.

I say to those hon. Members who might feel that the issue has already become too partisan, that I regret that, as do my hon. Friends. I know what it is like to sit on the Government Benches, wondering whether to support my tribe, and being effectively forced to do so by the antics of the tribe on the Opposition Benches. That does not, however, alter the fundamental issue, which is winning back the trust of the public through transparency.

I ask all hon. Members tonight to reach outside those tribal boundaries—we are freely elected to do so occasionally, and tonight is one of those occasions—in the interests of winning back the trust of those who sent us to this place.

7.5 pm

Mr. Newton

Those right hon. and hon. Members who have been present throughout the debate—which has done, as did our previous debate, considerable credit to the House in spite of occasional heated moments—will realise that, on many of the issues that were mentioned, there is little that I can add to what I said in my speech opening the debate. I certainly do not wish to take up the time available to other Members, making a long, repetitive speech. However, obviously I should comment further on some issues.

First, I shall say a word about what my right hon. Friends the Members for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) and for Bridgwater (Mr. King) and several others said during the debate, or said sotto voce by coming and whispering in my ear as I sat on the Treasury Bench, about the rush with which everything has been done and the disadvantages that they believe have resulted. No one who has served on the Committee or taken part in the process would wish to dismiss that. Obviously, everything has been done in a great hurry, but that, I say to my colleagues on both sides of the House, is the position in which, as a House, we were placed by the situation that had developed.

I have no doubt that, had we sought another six, eight or nine months of delay, in which we would have been attacked collectively, not from one side or the other, for failing to respond to public anxiety, and had we let those arguments range and rage in the way that they have done, it would have gravely further damaged the reputation of all of us and of the House. Therefore, it was right to proceed fast. Although I did not wish to spend virtually every waking hour in a Select Committee, trying to do the job that we have done, I believe that it was worth it, and that we have made real progress to the advantage of the House.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) and several others raised the question that my right hon, Friend put as if there were created some hiatus or gap between our comments in the paragraphs of the report referring to speeches, and the terms of the resolution. I would not dismiss what has been said, but it is inconceivable that the commissioner and the new committee would totally disregard the clear basis on which the House has been invited to take a decision tonight. Were that to happen—I do not believe that it could—I would certainly want to give careful and urgent consideration to the position that that would create, for example, for my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) and others. I will say—I mention something that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) said—that that would be a much stronger argument were I seeking to persuade the House tonight to pass an Act of Parliament or a set of regulations in which we really would be subject to a great deal of legalistic textual interpretation. However, I do not believe that that fear is well founded.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup mentioned unfounded complaints being widely circulated. Paragraph 26 of our first report states: Where, however, the Commissioner decided that no prima facie case had been established, he would merely report the facts to the committee. The Committee would inform both the complainant and the Member concerned, but no details of the complaint would be published. That passage is underlined in red, so it must have been mentioned earlier. In view of what my right hon. Friend said, it is important for me to put that on the record again.

The other worry that has echoed through today's debate—I understand why, as we on the Committee also wrestled with it—was most eloquently expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen). He doubted whether the line could be held in the position where the Committee had proposed it. He may be right on that. One of the problems that we all have to wrestle with is that the world has moved on—that is true even since I entered the House in 1974, and since the creation of the Register of Members' Interests. New problems have arisen, public perceptions have changed, the view about what should be disclosed or registered has changed. Clearly, there may have to be further changes in future. I believe that we could respectably hold the line on the Select Committee's proposal and my resolutions.

The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) invited me to confirm what I had said about her amendment (b) not taking us straight to the publication of tax returns. I readily confirm that that is my reading of her amendment. I want to reiterate that I am concerned that her proposal will make it much more difficult to hold the line proposed by the Select Committee and will push us steadily further down a path that almost no one in the House wishes to tread and very few think right or desirable.

Mrs. Ann Taylor

I confirm that I do not wish to go down that path, and neither do the amendment's co-proposers. Will the Leader of the House confirm that the amendment that I tabled on disclosure relates only to the agreements that he is recommending, which should be deposited with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, and is therefore limited?

Mr. Newton

That is certainly my understanding. I have never sought to mislead anyone about anything in the affair. I hope that the hon. Lady and all hon. Members will bear in mind when they decide how to vote that I have no doubt that, even though the hon. Lady says that she does not want to move in that direction, her amendment (b) will create a far greater risk of an inescapable slide towards the end that she does not want. I therefore cannot recommend her amendment to the House, and I hope that it will approve my motions.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 587, Noes 2.

Division No. 233]	[7.13 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane	Booth, Hartley
Adams, Mrs Irene	Boswell, Tim
Ainger, Nick	Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)	Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)	Bowden, Sir Andrew
Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan	Bowis, John
Alexander, Richard	Boyes, Roland
Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)	Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Allason, Rupert (Torbay)	Bradley, Keith
Allen, Graham	Brandreth, Gyles
Alton, David	Bray, Dr Jeremy
Amess, David	Brazier, Julian
Ancram, Michael	Bright, Sir Graham
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)	Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)	Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Arbuthnot, James	Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Armstrong, Hilary	Browning, Mrs Angela
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)	Budgen, Nicholas
Ashton, Joe	Burden, Richard
Atkins, Rt Hon Robert	Burns, Simon
Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)	Burt, Alistair
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)	Butler, Peter
Austin-Walker, John	Byers, Stephen
Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)	Caborn, Richard
Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)	Callaghan, Jim
Baldry, Tony	Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Banks, Matthew (Southport)	Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)	Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Barnes, Harry	Campbell-Savours, D N
Barron, Kevin	Canavan, Dennis
Bates, Michael	Cann, Jamie
Batiste, Spencer	Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Battle, John	Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Bayley, Hugh	Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret	Carrington, Matthew
Beith, Rt Hon A J	Cash, William
Bell, Stuart	Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Bellingham, Henry	Chapman, Sir Sydney
Bendall, Vivian	Chidgey, David
Benn, Rt Hon Tony	Chisholm, Malcolm
Bennett, Andrew F	Church, Judith
Benton, Joe	Clapham, Michael
Beresford, Sir Paul	Clappison, James
Bermingham, Gerald	Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Berry, Roger	Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Betts, Clive	Clarke, Erie (Midlothian)
Blunkett, David	Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Boateng, Paul	Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Body, Sir Richard	Clelland, David
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas	Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Clwyd, Mrs Ann	Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Coe, Sebastian	Fishburn, Dudley
Coffey, Ann	Fisher, Mark
Cohen, Harry	Flynn, Paul
Colvin, Michael	Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)
Congdon, David	Forth, Eric
Connarty, Michael	Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Conway, Derek	Foster, Don (Bath)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)	Foulkes, George
Cook, Robin (Livingston)	Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)	Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)	Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John	Fraser, John
Corbett, Robin	Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Corbyn, Jeremy	French, Douglas
Cormack, Sir Patrick	Fyfe, Maria
Corston, Jean	Galbraith, Sam
Couchman, James	Gale, Roger
Cousins, Jim	Galloway, George
Cox, Tom	Gapes, Mike
Cran, James	Gardiner, Sir George
Cummings, John	Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Cunliffe, Lawrence	Garnier, Edward
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)	Garrett, John
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John	George, Bruce
Cunningham, Roseanna	Gerrard, Neil
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)	Gill, Christopher
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)	Gillan, Cheryl
Dafis, Cynog	Godman, Dr Norman A
Dalyell, Tam	Godsiff, Roger
Darling, Alistair	Golding, Mrs Llin
Davidson, Ian	Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)	Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)	Gordon, Mildred
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)	Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)	Gorst, Sir John
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)	Graham, Thomas
Davis, David (Boothferry)	Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)	Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Day, Stephen	Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Denham, John	Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Deva, Nirj Joseph	Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Devlin, Tim	Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Dewar, Donald	Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Dicks, Terry	Grocott, Bruce
Dixon, Don	Grylls, Sir Michael
Dobson, Frank	Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Donohoe, Brian H	Gunnell, John
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen	Hague, Rt Hon William
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James	Hain, Peter
Dover, Den	Hall, Mike
Dowd, Jim	Hamilton, Sir Archibald
Duncan, Alan	Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Duncan-Smith, Iain	Hampson, Dr Keith
Dunn, Bob	Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy
Dunnachie, Jimmy	Hannam, Sir John
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth	Hanson, David
Durant, Sir Anthony	Hardy, Peter
Dykes, Hugh	Hargreaves, Andrew
Eagle, Ms Angela	Harman, Ms Harriet
Eastham, Ken	Harris, David
Eggar, Rt Hon Tim	Harvey, Nick
Elletson, Harold	Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Etherington, Bill	Hawkins, Nick
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)	Hayes, Jerry
Evans, John (St Helens N)	Heald, Oliver
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)	Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)	Heathcoat-Amory, David
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)	Henderson, Doug
Evennett, David	Hendron, Dr Joe
Ewing, Mrs Margaret	Hendry, Charles
Faber, David	Heppell, John
Fatchett, Derek	Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Faulds, Andrew	Hicks, Robert
Fenner, Dame Peggy	Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

Hill, James (Southampton Test)	Lightbown, Sir David
Hill, Keith (Streatham)	Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Hinchliffe, David	Litherland, Robert
Hodge, Margaret	Livingstone, Ken
Hoey, Kate	Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)	Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)	Lord, Michael
Home Robertson, John	Loyden, Eddie
Hood, Jimmy	Luff, Peter
Hoon, Geoffrey	Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Horam, John	Lynne, Ms Liz
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter	McAvoy, Thomas
Howard, Rt Hon Michael	McCartney, Ian
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)	McCartney, Robert
Howarth, George (Knowsley North)	Macdonald, Calum
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)	McFall, John
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)	McGrady, Eddie
Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)	MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Hoyle, Doug	MacKay, Andrew
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)	McKelvey, William
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)	Mackinlay, Andrew
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)	Maclean, Rt Hon David
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)	McLeish, Henry
Hunter, Andrew	Maclennan, Robert
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas	McLoughlin, Patrick
Hutton, John	McMaster, Gordon
Illsley, Eric	McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Ingram, Adam	McNamara, Kevin
Jack, Michael	MacShane, Denis
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)	McWilliam, John
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)	Madden, Max
Jamieson, David	Maddock, Diana
Janner, Grevilie	Madel, Sir David
Jenkin, Bernard	Mahon, Alice
Jessel, Toby	Maitland, Lady Olga
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey	Mallon, Seamus
Johnston, Sir Russell	Malone, Gerald
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)	Mandelson, Peter
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)	Mans, Keith
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)	Marek, Dr John
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)	Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)	Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)	Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)	Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)	Martin, Michael J (Springburn)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael	Martlew, Eric
Jewell, Tessa	Mates, Michael
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald	Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Keen, Alan	Maxton, John
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine	Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)	Meacher, Michael
Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)	Meale, Alan
Key, Robert	Mellor, Rt Hon David
Khabra, Piara S	Merchant Piers
kilfoyle, Peter	Michael, Alun
King, Rt Hon Tom	Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Kirkhope, Timothy	Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Kirkwood, Archy	Milburn, Alan
Knapman, Roger	Miller, Andrew
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)	Mills, Iain
Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)	Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)	Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Knox, Sir David	Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)	Moate, Sir Roger
Lait, Mrs Jacqui	Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman	Moonie, Dr Lewis
Lang, Rt Hon Ian	Morgan, Rhodri
Lawrence, Sir Ivan	Morley, Elliot
Legg, Barry	Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)
Leigh, Edward	Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark	Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)	Moss, Malcolm
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)	Mowlam, Marjorie
Lewis, Terry	Mudie, George
Liddell, Mrs Helen	Mullin, Chris
Lidington, David	Murphy, Paul

Needham, Rt Hon Richard	Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Nelson, Anthony	Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Neubert, Sir Michael	Shersby, Sir Michael
Newton, Rt Hon Tony	Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Nicholls, Patrick	Short Clare
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)	Simpson, Alan
Norris, Steve	Skeet Sir Trevor
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon	Skinner, Dennis
O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)	Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
O'Brien, William (Normanton)	Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
O'Hara, Edward	Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Olner, Bill	Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
O'Neill, Martin	Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley	Snape, Peter
Oppenheim, Phillip	Soames, Nicholas
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley	Soley, Clive
Ottaway, Richard	Spearing, Nigel
Page, Richard	Speed, Sir Keith
Paice, James	Spellar, John
Patnick, Sir Irvine	Spencer, Sir Derek
Patten, Rt Hon John	Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey	Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Pawsey, James	Spink, Dr Robert
Pearson, Ian	Spring, Richard
Pendry, Tom	Sproat, Iain
Pickles, Eric	Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
Pickthall, Colin	Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Pike, Peter L	Steen, Anthony
Pope, Greg	Steinberg, Gerry
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)	Stern, Michael
Porter, David (Waveney)	Stevenson, George
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael	Stewart, Allan
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)	Stott, Roger
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)	Strang, Dr. Gavin
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)	Straw, Jack
Prescott, Rt Hon John	Streeter, Gary
Primarolo, Dawn	Sutcliffe, Gerry
Purchase, Ken	Sweeney, Walter
Quin, Ms Joyce	Sykes, John
Radice, Giles	Tapsell, Sir Peter
Randall, Stuart	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Raynsford, Nick	Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Redmond, Martin	Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Redwood, Rt Hon John	Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Reid, Dr John	Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Rendel, David	Thomason, Roy
Renton, Rt Hon Tim	Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Richards, Rod	Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Riddick, Graham	Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Robathan, Andrew	Timms, Stephen
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn	Tipping, Paddy
Robertson, George (Hamilton)	Touhig, Don
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)	Townend, John (Bridlington)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)	Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)	Tracey, Richard
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)	Tredinnick, David
Roche, Mrs Barbara	Trend, Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)	Trimble, David
Rogers, Allan	Trotter, Neville
Rooker, Jeff	Turner, Dennis
Rooney, Terry	Twinn, Dr Ian
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)	Tyler, Paul
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)	Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Rowlands, Ted	Vaz, Keith
Ruddock, Joan	viggers, Peter
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela	Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard	Walden, George
Sackville, Tom	Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy	Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold
Salmond, Alex	Wallace, James
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas	Waller, Gary
Sedgemore, Brian	Walley, Joan
Shaw, David (Dover)	Ward, John
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)	Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Sheerman, Barry	Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert	Wareing, Robert N

Waterson, Nigel	Wilshire, David
Watson, Mike	Wilson, Brian
Watts, John	Winnick, David
Wells, Bowen	Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Welsh, Andrew	Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John	Wise, Audrey
Whitney, Ray	Wood, Timothy
Whittingdale, John	Worthington, Tony
	Wray, Jimmy
Wicks, Malcolm	Wright, Dr Tony
Widdecombe, Ann	Yeo, Tim
Wiggin, Sir Jerry	Young, David (Bolton SE)
Wigley, Dafydd	Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Wilkinson, John
Willetts, David	Tellers for the Ayes:
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)	Mr. Robert Hughes and Mr. Michael Brown.
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

NOES
Fabricant, Michael	Sims, Roger
	Tellers for the Noes
	Mr. John Butterfill and Mr. Tony Marlow.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved, That the Resolution of the House of 15th July 1947 relating to Privileges shall be amended by adding at the end the words— 'and that in particular no Member of the House shall, in consideration of any remuneration, fee, payment, reward or benefit in kind, direct or indirect, which the Member or any member of his or her family has received is receiving or expects to receive—

1. (i) advocate or initiate any cause or matter on behalf of any outside body or individual, or
2. (ii) urge any other Member of either House of Parliament, including Ministers, to do so, by means of any speech, Question, Motion, introduction of a Bill or amendment to a Motion or Bill'.

Madam Speaker

I remind the House that votes should always follow voices when a Division is called. Will the Leader of the House now move formally motion No. 2?

Motion made, and Question proposed, That— (1) with effect from Wednesday 15th November 1995, any Member proposing to enter into an agreement which involves the provision of services in his capacity as a Member of Parliament shall conclude such an agreement only if it conforms to the Resolution of the House of 6th November 1995 relating to Conduct of Members; and that a copy of any such agreement, excluding the amount of any fee or benefit payable, shall be deposited with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards at the same time as it is registered in the Register of Members' Interests; 2) any Member who has an existing agreement involving the provision of services in his capacity as a Member of Parliament which conforms to the Resolution of the House of 6th November 1995 relating to Conduct of Members, but which is not in written form, shall take steps to put the agreement into written form; and that no later than 31st March 1996 a copy of any such agreement, excluding the amount of any fee or benefit payable, shall be deposited with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and registered in the Register of Members' Interests; and 3) any Member who has an existing agreement which does not conform to the Resolution of the House on 6th November 1995 relating to Conduct of Members shall, by 31st March 1996, either redraw the agreement so that it conforms to the said Resolution or withdraw from the agreement; and that a copy of any such redrawn agreement, excluding the amount of any fee or benefit payable, shall be deposited with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and registered in the Register of Members' Interests by that date.—[Mr. Newton.]

Amendment proposed: (b) in line 6, leave out from 'a' to 'shall' in line 7 and insert 'full copy of any such agreement including the fees or benefits payable in bands of: up to £1,000, £1,000–£5,000, £5,000–£10,000, and thereafter in bands of £5,000.'.—[Mrs. Ann Taylor.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 322, Noes 271.

Division No. 234]	[7.34 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane	Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Adams, Mrs Irene	Corbett, Robin
Ainger, Nick	Corbyn, Jeremy
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)	Corston, Jean
Allason, Rupert (Torbay)	Cousins, Jim
Allen, Graham	Cox, Tom
Alton, David	Cummings, John
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)	Cunliffe, Lawrence
Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)	Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Armstrong, Hilary	Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Ashton, Joe	Cunningham, Roseanna
Austin-Walker, John	Dafis, Cynog
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)	Dalyell, Tam
Barnes, Harry	Darling, Alistair
Barron, Kevin	Davidson, Ian
Battle, John	Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Bayley, Hugh	Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)
Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret	Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Beith, Rt Hon A J	Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Bell, Stuart	Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Benn, Rt Hon Tony	Day, Stephen
Bennett, Andrew F	Denham, John
Benton, Joe	Dewar, Donald
Bermingham, Gerald	Dixon, Don
Berry, Roger	Dobson, Frank
Betts, Clive	Donohoe, Brian H
Biffen, Rt Hon John	Dowd, Jim
Blunkett David	Dunnachie, Jimmy
Boateng, Paul	Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Boyes, Roland	Dykes, Hugh
Bradley, Keith	Eastham, Ken
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Etherington, Bill
Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)	Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)	Fabricant, Michael
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)	Fatchett, Derek
Burden, Richard	Faulds, Andrew
Byers, Stephen	Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Caborn, Richard	Fisher, Mark
Callaghan, Jim	Flynn, Paul
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)	Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)	Foster, Don (Bath)
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)	Foulkes, George
Campbell-Savours, D N	Fraser, John
Canavan. Dennis	Fyfe, Maria
Cann, Jamie	Galbraith, Sam
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)	Galloway, George
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)	Gapes, Mike
Chidgey, David	Garrett, John
Chisholm, Malcolm	George, Bruce
Church, Judith	Gerrard, Neil
Clapham, Michael	Godman, Dr Norman A
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)	Godsiff, Roger
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)	Golding, Mrs Llin
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)	Gordon, Mildred
Clelland, David	Graham, Thomas
Clwyd, Mrs Ann	Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Coffey, Ann	Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Cohen, Harry	Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Connarty, Michael	Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)	Grocott, Bruce

Gunnell, John	Mallon, Seamus
Hain, Peter	Mandelson, Peter
Hall, Mike	Marek,Dr John
Hanson, David	Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Hardy, Peter	Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Harman, Ms Harriet	Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Harvey, Nick	Martin, Michael J (Springburn)
Hattersley, Fit Hon Roy	Martlew, Eric
Henderson, Doug	Maxton, John
Hendron, Dr Joe	Meacher, Michael
Heppell, John	Meale, Alan
Hill, Keith (Streatham)	Michael, Alun
Hinchliffe, David	Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Hodge, Margaret	Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Hoey, Kate	Milburn, Alan
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)	Miller, Andrew
Home Robertson, John	Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Hood, Jimmy	Moonie, Dr Lewis
Hoon, Geoffrey	Morgan, Rhodri
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)	Morley, Elliot
Howarth, George (Knowsley North	Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)
Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)	Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Hoyle, Doug	Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)	Mowlam, Marjorie
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)	Mudie, George
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)	Mullin, Chris
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)	Murphy, Paul
Hutton, John	Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Illsley, Eric	Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Ingram, Adam	Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)	O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)	O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Jamieson, David	O'Hara, Edward
Janner, Greville	Olner, Bill
Johnston, Sir Russell	O'Neill, Martin
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)	Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)	Pearson, Ian
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)	Pendry, Tom
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)	Pickthall, Colin
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)	Pike, Peter L
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)	Pope, Greg
Jowell, Tessa	Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald	Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Keen, Alan	Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)	Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)	Prescott, Rt Hon John
Khabra, Piara S	Primarolo, Dawn
Kilfoyle, Peter	Purchase, Ken
Kirkwood, Archy	Quin, Ms Joyce
Legg, Barry	Radice, Giles
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)	Randall, Stuart
Lewis, Terry	Raynsford, Nick
Liddell, Mrs Helen	Redmond, Martin
Litherland, Robert	Reid, Dr John
Livingstone, Ken	Rendel, David
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)	Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Loyden, Eddie	Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Lynne, Ms Liz	Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
McAllton, John	Roche, Mrs Barbara
McAvoy, Thomas	Rogers, Allan
McCartney, Ian	Rooker, Jeff
McCartney, Robert	Rooney, Terry
Macdonald, Calum	Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
McFall, John	Rowlands, Ted
McGrady, Eddie	Ruddock, Joan
McKelvey, William	Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Mackinlay, Andrew	Salmond, Alex
McLeish, Henry	Sedgemore, Brian
Maclennan, Robert	Sheerman, Barry
McMaster, Gordon	Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
McNamara, Kevin	Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
MacShane, Denis	Shore, Rt Hon Peter
McWilliam, John	Short, Clare
Madden, Max	Simpson, Alan
Maddock, Diana	Sims, Roger
Mahon, Alice	Skinner, Dennis

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)	Turner, Dennis
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)	Tyler, Paul
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)	Vaz, Keith
Snape, Peter	Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold
Soley, Clive	Wallace, James
Spearing, Nigel	Waller, Gary
Spellar.John	Walley, Joan
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)	Warden, Gareth (Gower)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John	Wareing, Robert N
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David	Watson, Mike
Steinberg, Gerry	Welsh, Andrew
Stevenson, George	Wicks, Malcolm
Stewart, Allan	Wigley, Dafydd
Stott Roger	Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)
Strang, Dr. Gavin	Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)
Straw, Jack	Wilshire, David
Sutcliffe, Gerry	Wilson, Brian
Sweeney, Walter	Winnick, David
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)	Wise, Audrey
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)	Worthington, Tony
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)	Wray, Jimmy
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)	Wright, Dr Tony
Thurnham, Peter	Young, David (Bolton SE)
Timms, Stephen
Tipping, Paddy	Tellers for the Ayes:
Touhig, Don	Mr. John Evans and Ms Angela Eagle.
Tredinnick, David

NOES
Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)	Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan	Coe, Sebastian
Alexander, Richard	Colvin, Michael
Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)	Congdon, David
Amess, David	Conway, Derek
Ancram, Michael	Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Arbuthnot, James	Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)	Cormack, Sir Patrick
Atkins, Rt Hon Robert	Couchman, James
Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)	Cran, James
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)	Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)	Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)	Davis, David (Boothferry)
Baldry, Tony	Deva, Nirj Joseph
Banks, Matthew (Southport)	Devlin, Tim
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)	Dicks, Terry
Bates, Michael	Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Batiste, Spencer	Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Bellingham, Henry	Dover, Den
Bendall, Vivian	Duncan, Alan
Beresford, Sir Paul	Duncan-Smith, Iain
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas	Dunn, Bob
Boswell, Tim	Durant, Sir Anthony
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)	Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia	Elletson, Harold
Bowden, Sir Andrew	Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Bowis, John	Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes	Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Brandreth, Gyles	Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Brazier, Julian	Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Bright, Sir Graham	Evennett, David
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter	Faber, David
Browning, Mrs Angela	Fenner, Dame Peggy
Budgen, Nicholas	Fishburn, Dudley
Burns, Simon	Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)
Burt, Alistair	Forth, Eric
Butler, Peter	Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Butterfill, John	Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Carlisle, John (Luton North)	Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Carrington, Matthew	Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Cash, William	French, Douglas
Channon, Rt Hon Paul	Gale, Roger
Chapman, Sir Sydney	Gardiner, Sir George
Clappison, James	Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)	Garnier, Edward
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)	Gillan, Cheryl

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair	Mans, Keith
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles	Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa	Mates, Michael
Gorst, Sir John	Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)	Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)	Mellor, Rt Hon David
Greenway, John (Ryedale)	Merchant, Piers
Grylls, Sir Michael	Mills, Iain
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn	Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Hague, Rt Hon William	Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Hamilton, Sir Archibald	Moate, Sir Roger
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)	Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy	Moss, Malcolm
Hannam, Sir John	Needham, Rt Hon Richard
Hargreaves, Andrew	Nelson, Anthony
Harris, David	Neubert, Sir Michael
Haselhurst, Sir Alan	Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Hawkins, Nick	Nicholls, Patrick
Hayes, Jerry	Norris, Steve
Heald, Oliver	Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward	Oppenheim, Phillip
Heathcoat-Amory, David	Ottaway, Richard
Hendry, Charles	Page, Richard
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael	Paice, James
Hicks, Robert	Patrick, Sir Irvine
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence	Patten, Rt Hon John
Hill, James (Southampton Test)	Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)	Pawsey, James
Horam, John	Pickles, Eric
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Porter, David (Waveney)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael	Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)	Powell, William (Corby)
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)	Redwood, Rt Hon John
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)	Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Hunter, Andrew	Richards, Rod
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas	Riddick, Graham
Jack, Michael	Robathan, Andrew
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)	Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Jenkin, Bernard	Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Jessel, Toby	Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey	Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)	Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)	Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael	Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine	Sackville, Tom
Key, Robert	Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
King, Rt Hon Tom	Shaw, David (Dover)
Kirkhope, Timothy	Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Knapman, Roger	Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)	Shersby, Sir Michael
Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)	Skeet, Sir Trevor
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)	Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Knox, Sir David	Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)	Soames, Nicholas
Lait, Mrs Jacqui	Speed, Sir Keith
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman	Spencer, Sir Derek
Lang, Rt Hon Ian	Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan	Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Leigh, Edward	Spink, Dr Robert
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark	Spring, Richard
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)	Sproat, Iain
Lidington, David	Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Lightbown, Sir David	Steen, Anthony
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter	Stephen, Michael
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)	Stern, Michael
Lord, Michael	Streeter, Gary
Luff, Peter	Tapsell, Sir Peter
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas	Taylor, Ian (Esher)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John	Taylor, John M (Solihull)
MacKay, Andrew	Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Maclean, Rt Hon David	Thomason, Roy
McLoughlin, Patrick	Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick	Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Madel, Sir David	Townend, John (Bridlington)
Maitland, Lady Olga	Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)
Malone, Gerald	Tracey, Richard

Trend, Michael	Whitney, Ray
Trotter, Neville	Whittingdale, John
Twinn, Dr Ian	Widdecombe, Ann
Vaughan, Sir Gerard	Wiggin, Sir Jerry
Viggers, Peter	Wilkinson, John
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William	Willetts, David
Walden, George	Winterton, Mrs Arm (Congleton)
	Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)	Wood, Timothy
Ward, John	Yeo, Tim
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)	Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Waterson, Nigel
Watts, John	Tellers for the Noes:
Wells, Bowen	Mr. Michael Brown and Mr. Robert C. Hughes.
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Question accordingly agreed to.

Madam Speaker

Amendments (c) and (d) fall. May we be clear that amendment.(e), in the name of the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), is withdrawn in favour of amendment (f).

Mr. Wilshire

I withdraw the amendment.

Amendment proposed: (f), in line 9, at end insert `and made available for inspection by the public'.—[Mrs. Ann Taylor.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. Devlin (seated and covered)

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Amendment (f) appears to repeat the wording of the last line of the amendment on which the House has just voted. In my view, therefore, amendment (f) is necessary.

Madam Speaker

The House is dividing on amendment (f).

The House having divided: Ayes 325, Noes 202.

Division No. 235]	[7.50 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane	Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Adams, Mrs Irene	Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Ainger, Nick	Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)	Burden, Richard
Allason, Rupert (Torbay)	Byers, Stephen
Allen, Graham	Caborn, Richard
Alton, David	Callaghan, Jim
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)	Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)	Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Armstrong, Hilary	Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Ashton, Joe	Campbell-Savours, D N
Austin-Walker, John	Canavan, Dennis
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)	Cann, Jamie
Barnes, Harry	Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Barron, Kevin	Carrington, Matthew
Battle, John	Chidgey, David
Bayley, Hugh	Chisholm, Malcolm
Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret	Church, Judith
Beith, Rt Hon A J	Clapham, Michael
Bell, Stuart	Clark Dr David (South Shields)
Benn, Rt Hon Tony	Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Benton, Joe	Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Bermingham, Gerald	Clelland, David
Berry, Roger	Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Betts, Clive	Coffey, Ann
Blunkett, David	Cohen, Harry
Boateng, Paul	Connarty, Michael
Boyes, Roland	Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Bradley, Keith	Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Corbett, Robin

Corbyn, Jeremy	Hoey, Kate
Corston, Jean	Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Cousins, Jim	Home Robertson, John
Cox, Tom	Hood, Jimmy
Cummings, John	Hoon, Geoffrey
Cunliffe, Lawrence	Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)	Howarth, George (Knowsley North)
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John	Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)
Cunningham, Roseanna	Hoyle, Doug
Dafis, Cynog	Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Dalyell, Tam	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Darling, Alistair	Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Davidson, Ian	Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)	Hutton, John
Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)	Illsley, Eric
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)	Ingram, Adam
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)	Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)	Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Day, Stephen	Jamieson, David
Denham, John	Janner, Greville
Deva, Nirj Joseph	Johnston, Sir Russell
Dewar, Donald	Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Dixon, Don	Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Dobson, Frank	Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Donohoe, Brian H	Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Dowd, Jim	Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Dunnachie, Jimmy	Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth	Jowell, Tessa
Eagle, Ms Angela	Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Eastham, Ken	Keen, Alan
Etherington, Bill	Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Evans, John (St Helens N)	Kennedy, Jane (L'pod Br'dg'n)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)	Key, Robert
Ewing, Mrs Margaret	Khabra, Piara S
Fabricant, Michael	Kilfoyle, Peter
Fatchett Derek	Kirkwood, Archy
Faulds, Andrew	Legg, Barry
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)	Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Fisher, Mark	Lewis, Terry
Flynn, Paul	Liddell, Mrs Helen
Foster, Rt Hon Derek	Litherland, Robert
Foster, Don (Bath)	Livingstone, Ken
Foulkes, George	Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Fraser, John	Loyden, Eddie
Fyfe, Maria	Lynne, Ms Liz
Galbraith, Sam	McAllion, John
Galloway, George	McAvoy, Thomas
Gapes, Mike	McCartney, Ian
Garrett, John	McCartney, Robert
George, Bruce	Macdonald, Calum
Gerrard, Neil	McFall, John
Godman, Dr Norman A	McGrady, Eddie
Godsiff, Roger	McKelvey, William
Golding, Mrs Llin	Mackinlay, Andrew
Gordon, Mildred	McLeish, Henry
Graham, Thomas	Maclennan, Robert
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)	McMaster, Gordon
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)	McNamara, Kevin
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)	MacShane, Denis
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)	McWilliam, John
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)	Madden, Max
Grocott, Bruce	Maddock, Diana
Gunnell, John	Mahon, Alice
Hain, Peter	Mallon, Seamus
Hanson, David	Mandelson, Peter
Hardy, Peter	Marek, Dr John
Harman, Ms Harriet	Marlow, Tony
Harris, David	Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Harvey, Nick	Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy	Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Henderson, Doug	Martin, Michael J (Springburn)
Hendron, Dr Joe	MarrJew, Eric
Heppell, John	Maxton, John
Hill, Keith (Streatham)	Meacher, Michael
Hinchliffe, David	Meale, Alan
Hodge, Margaret	Michael, Alun

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)	Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)	Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Milburn, Alan	Short, Clare
Miller, Andrew	Simpson, Alan
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)	Sims, Roger
Moonie, Dr Lewis	Skinner, Dennis
Morgan, Rhodri	Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Morley, Elliot	Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)	Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)	Snape, Peter
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)	Soley, Clive
Mowlam, Marjorie	Spearing, Nigel
Mudie, George	Spellar, John
Mullin, Chris	Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
Murphy, Paul	Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Nicholson, David (Taunton)	Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon	Steinberg, Gerry
O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)	Stevenson, George
O'Brien, William (Normanton)	Stott, Roger
O'Hara, Edward	Strang, Dr. Gavin
Olner, Bill	Straw, Jack
O'Neill, Martin	Sutcliffe, Gerry
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley	Sweeney, Walter
Pearson, Ian	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Pendry, Tom	Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Pickthall, Colin	Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Pike, Peter L	Thurnham, Peter
Pope, Greg	Timms, Stephen
Porter, David (Waveney)	Tipping, Paddy
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)	Touhig, Don
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)	Tredinnick, David
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)	Trimble, David
	Turner, Dennis
Prescott, Rt Hon John	Tyler, Paul
Primarolo, Dawn	Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold
Purchase, Ken	Wallace James
Quin, Ms Joyce	Waller, Gary
Radice, Giles	Walley, Joan
Randall, Stuart	Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Raynsford, Nick	Wareing, Robert N
Redmond, Martin	Watson, Mike
Reid, Dr John	Welsh, Andrew
Rendel, David	Wicks, Malcolm
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn	Wigley, Dafydd
Robertson, George (Hamilton)	Wilkinson, John
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)	Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)	Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)
Roche, Mrs Barbara	Wilshire, David
Rogers, Allan	Wilson, Brian
Rooker, Jeff	Winnick, David
Rooney, Terry	Wise, Audrey
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)	Worthington, Tony
Rowlands, Ted	Wray, Jimmy
Ruddock, Joan	Wright, Dr Tony
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy	Young, David (Bolton SE)
Salmond, Alex
Sedgemore, Brian	Tellers for the Ayes:
Sheerman, Barry	Mr. Andrew F. Bennett and Mr. Mike Hall.
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

NOES
Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)	Beresford, Sir Paul
Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan	Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Alexander, Richard	Boswell, Tim
Amess, David	Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Ancram, Michael	Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Arbuthnot, James	Bowis, John
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)	Brandreth, Gyles
Atkins, Rt Hon Robert	Brazier, Julian
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)	Bright, Sir Graham
Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)	Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Baldry, Tony	Browning, Mrs Angela
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)	Budgen, Nicholas
Bates, Michael	Burns, Simon
Batiste, Spencer	Burt, Alistair
Bellingham, Henry	Butler, Peter

Cash, William	Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Chapman, Sir Sydney	Knox, Sir David
Clappison, James	Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)	Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)	Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey	Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Coe, Sebastian	Leigh, Edward
Conway, Derek	Lidington, David
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)	Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John	Luff, Peter
Couchman, James	Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Cran, James	MacKay, Andrew
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)	Maclean, Rt Hon David
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)	McLoughlin, Patrick
Davis, David (Boothferry)	Maitland, Lady Olga
Devlin, Tim	Malone, Gerald
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen	Mans, Keith
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James	Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Dover, Den	Mates, Michael
Duncan, Alan	Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Duncan-Smith, Iain	Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Dunn, Bob	Mellor, Rt Hon David
Durant, Sir Anthony	Merchant Piers
Eggar, Rt Hon Tim	Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Elletson, Harold	Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Moate, Sir Roger
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)	Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)	Moss, Malcolm
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)	Needham, Rt Hon Richard
Evennett, David	Nelson, Anthony
Faber, David	Neubert, Sir Michael
Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)	Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Forth, Eric	Nicholls, Patrick
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman	Norris, Steve
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)	Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger	Oppenheim, Phillip
French, Douglas	Ottaway, Richard
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan	Page, Richard
Garnier, Edward	Paice, James
Gillan, Cheryl	Patnick, Sir Irvine
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair	Patten, Rt Hon John
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles	Pickles, Eric
Gorst Sir John	Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Grylls, Sir Michael	Redwood, Rt Hon John
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn	Richards, Rod
Hague, Rt Hon William	Riddick, Graham
Hamilton, Sir Archibald	Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)	Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy	Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Hannam, Sir John	Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Hargreaves, Andrew	Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Hawkins, Nick	Sackville, Tom
Heald, Oliver	Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward	Shaw, David (Dover)
Heathcoat-Amory, David	Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Hendry, Charles	Shersby, Sir Michael
Heseftine, Rt Hon Michael	Skeet, Sir Trevor
Hicks, Robert	Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence	Soames, Nicholas
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)	Speed, Sir Keith
Horam, John	Spencer, Sir Derek
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael	Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)	Spink, Dr Robert
Hunter, Andrew	Spring, Richard
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas	Sproat, Iain
Jack, Michael	Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Jenkin, Bernard	Steen, Anthony
Jessel, Toby	Stern, Michael
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)	Streeter, Gary
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)	Tapsell, Sir Peter
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine	Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Kirkhope, Timothy	Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Knapman, Roger	Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)	Townend, John (Bridlington)
Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)	Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

Trend, Michael	Whittingdale, John
Vaughan, Sir Gerard	Widdecombe, Ann
Viggers, Peter	Wiggin, Sir Jerry
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William	Willetts, David
Walden, George	Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)	Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)
Ward, John	Wood, Timothy
Waterson, Nigel	Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Watts, John
Wells, Bowen	Tellers for the Noes:
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John	Mr. Michael Brown and Mr. Robert C. Hughes.
Whitney, Ray

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendment made: (g), in line 14, leave out from 'a' to 'shall' in line 16 and insert `full copy of any such agreement including the fees or benefits payable in bands of: up to £1,000, £1,000–£5,000, £5,000–£10,000, and thereafter in bands of £.5,000.'.—[Mrs. Ann Taylor.]

Madam Speaker

Amendment (h) now falls.

Amendment made: (i), in line 17, after 'Interests', insert `and made available for inspection by the public'.—[Mrs. Ann Taylor.]

Madam Speaker

Amendment (j) therefore falls.

Amendment made: (k), in line 22, leave out from 'a' to `shall' in line 23 and insert `full copy of any such agreement including the fees or benefits payable in bands of: up to £1,000, £1,000–£5,000, £5,000–£10,000, and thereafter in bands of £5,000.'.—[Mrs. Ann Taylor.]

Madam Speaker

Amendment (1) in the name of the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) now falls.

Amendment made: (m), in line 24, at end add `and made available for inspection by the public'.—[Mrs. Ann Taylor.]

Madam Speaker

I understand that the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood has withdrawn amendment (n). Is that clear? Amendment (o) now falls.

Amendment proposed: (p) in line 24, at end add— `(4) notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs 1–3 of this Resolution with effect from Wednesday 15th November 1995, no Member shall enter into an agreement for the provision of services in his/her capacity as a Member of Parliament with any individual or organisation engaged in lobbying or public relations on behalf of more than one client:.—[Mr. Salmond.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 48, Noes 243.

Division No. 236]	[8.04 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane	Foster, Don (Bath)
Alton, David	Godsiff, Roger
Ashton, Joe	Gordon, Mildred
Austin-Walker, John	Harvey, Nick
Barnes, Harry	Hoey, Kate
Body, Sir Richard	Hughes, Simon (Southward)
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)	Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Canavan, Dennis	Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Chidgey, David	Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Corbyn, Jeremy	Kirkwood, Archy
Cunningham, Roseanna	Litherland, Robert
Dafis, Cynog	Livingstone, Ken
Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)	Loyden, Eddie
Flynn, Paul	Lynne, Ms Liz

Mackinlay, Andrew	Spearing, Nigel
Maclennan, Robert	Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Maddock, Diana	Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Michle, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)	Trimble, David
Michle, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)	Tyler, Paul
Mills, Iain	Wallace, James
Mullin, Chris	Wigley, Dafydd
Rendel, David	Wise, Audrey
Salmond, Alex
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)	Tellers for the Ayes:
Simpson, Alan	Mrs. Margaret Ewing and Mr. Andrew Welsh.
Skinner, Dennis

NOES
Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)	Dunn, Bob
Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan	Durant, Sir Anthony
Alexander, Richard	Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)	Elletson, Harold
Allason, Rupert (Torbay)	Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Amess, David	Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Ancram, Michael	Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Arbuthnot, James	Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)	Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Ashby, David	Evennett David
Atkins, Rt Hon Robert	Faber, David
Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)	Fabricant, Michael
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)	Fenner, Dame Peggy
Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)	Fishburn, Dudley
Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)	Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)
Baldry, Tony	Forth, Eric
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)	Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Bates, Michael	Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Batiste, Spencer	Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Bellingham, Henry	French, Douglas
Beresford, Sir Paul	Gale, Roger
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas	Gallie, Phil
Booth, Hartley	Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Boswel, Tim	Garnier, Edward
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)	Gillan, Cheryl
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia	Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Bowis, John	Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes	Gorst, Sir John
Brandreth, Gyles	Grant Sir A (SW Cambs)
Brazier, Julian	Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Bright, Sir Graham	Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter	Grylls, Sir Michael
Browning, Mrs Angela	Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Budgen, Nicholas	Hague, Rt Hon William
Burns, Simon	Hamilton, Sir Archibald
Burt, Alistair	Hampson, Dr Keith
Butler, Peter	Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)	Hannam, Sir John
Cash, William	Hargreaves, Andrew
Chapman, Sir Sydney	Harris, David
Clappison, James	Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)	Hawkins, Nick
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)	Hayes, Jerry
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey	Heald, Oliver
Coe, Sebastian	Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Colvin, Michael	Heathcoat-Amory, David
Conway, Derek	Hendry, Charles
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)	Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)	Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John	Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Cormack, Sir Patrick	Horam, John
Couchman, James	Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Cran, James	Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)	Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)	Hunter, Andrew
Davis, David (Boothferry)	Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Deva, Nirj Joseph	Jack, Michael
Dicks, Terry	Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen	Jenkin, Bernard
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James	Jessel, Toby
Dover, Den	Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Duncan, Alan	Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)	Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael	Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine	Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Key, Robert	Sackville, Tom
Kirkhope, Timothy	Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Knapman, Roger	Shaw, David (Dover)
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)	Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)	Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)	Shersby, Sir Michael
Knox, Sir David	Sims, Roger
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)	Skeet, Sir Trevor
Lait, Mrs Jacqui	Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Lang, Rt Hon Ian	Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan	Soames, Nicholas
Leigh, Edward	Speed, Sir Keith
Lidington, David	Spencer, Sir Derek
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter	Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)	Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Luff, Peter	Spink, Dr Robert
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas	Sproat, Iain
MacGregor, Rt Hon John	Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
MacKay, Andrew	Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Maclean, Rt Hon David	Steen, Anthony
McLoughlin, Patrick	Stern, Michael
Maitland, Lady Olga	Streeter, Gary
Malone, Gerald	Sumberg, David
Mans, Keith	Tapsell, Sir Peter
Marshall, John (Hendon S)	Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)	Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Mates, Michael	Thomason, Roy
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian	Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick	Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Merchant Piers	Townend, John (Bridlington)
	Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)	Tracey, Richard
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)	Tredinnick, David
Moate, Sir Roger	Trend, Michael
Montgomery, Sir Fergus	Trotter Neville
Moss, Malcolm	Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Needham, Rt Hon Richard	Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Nelson, Anthony	Walden, George
Neubert, Sir Michael	Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony	Waller, Gary
Nicholls, Patrick	Ward, John
Nicholson, David (Taunton)	Waterson, Nigel
Norris, Steve	Watts, John
Oppenheim, Phillip	Wells, Bowen
Ottaway, Richard	Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John
Page, Richard	Whitney, Ray
Paice, James	Whittingdale, John
Patnick, Sir Irvine	Widdecombe, Ann
Patten, Rt Hon John	Wiggin, Sir Jerry
Pickles, Eric	Wilkinson, John
Porter, David (Waveney)	Willetts, David
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael	Winterton, Mrs Arm (Congleton)
Redwood, Rt Hon John	Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)
Richards, Rod	Wood, Timothy
Riddick, Graham	Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Robathan, Andrew
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn	Tellers for the Noes:
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)	Mr. Michael Brown and Mr. Robert C. Hughes.
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question, as amended, agreed to.

Resolved, That— (1) with effect from Wednesday 15th November 1995, any Member proposing to enter into an agreement which involves the provision of services in his capacity as a Member of Parliament shall conclude such an agreement only if it conforms to the Resolution of the House of 6th November 1995 relating to Conduct of Members; and that a full copy of any such agreement including the fees or benefits payable in bands of: up to £1,000, £1,000–5,000, £5,000–£10,000, and thereafter in bands of £5,000, shall be deposited with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards at the same time as it is registered in the Register of Members' Interests and made available for inspection by the public; (2) any Member who has an existing agreement involving the provision of services in his capacity as a Member of Parliament which conforms to the Resolution of the House of 6th November 1995 relating to Conduct of Members, but which is not in written form, shall take steps to put the agreement into written form; and that no later than 31st March 1996 a full copy of any such agreement including the fees or benefits payable in bands of: up to £1,000, £1,000–£5,000, £5,000–£10,000, and thereafter in bands of £5,000 shall be deposited with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and registered in the Register of Members' Interests and made available for inspection by the public; and (3) any Member who has an existing agreement which does not conform to the Resolution of the House on 6th November 1995 relating to Conduct of Members shall, by 31st March 1996, either redraw the agreement so that it conforms to the said Resolution or withdraw from the agreement; and that a full copy of any such agreement including the fees or benefits payable in bands of: up to £1,000, £1,000–£5,000, £5,000–£10,000 and thereafter in bands of £5,000 shall be deposited with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and registered in the Register of Members' Interests by that date and made available for inspection by the public.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House agrees with the recommendations in the Second Report from the Select Committee on Standards in Public Life (House of Commons Paper No. 816) relating to— (1) the recording of deputations in the Register of Members' Interests (paragraph 31); and (2) the cessation of paid advocacy (paragraph 54).—[Mr. Newton.]

Amendment proposed: (a), in line 4, leave out paragraph (1).—[Mrs. Ann Taylor.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 291, Noes 266.

Division No. 237]	[8.15 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane	Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Adams, Mrs Irene	Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Ainger, Nick	Burden, Richard
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)	Byers, Stephen
Allen, Graham	Caborn, Richard
Alton, David	Callaghan, Jim
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)	Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)	Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Armstrong, Hilary	Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Ashton, Joe	Campbell-Savours, D N
Austin-Walker, John	Canavan, Dennis
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)	Cann, Jamie
Barnes, Harry	Chidgey, David
Barron, Kevin	Chisholm, Malcolm
Battle, John	Church, Judith
Bayley, Hugh	Clapham, Michael
Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret	Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Beith, Rt Hon A J	Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Bell, Stuart	Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Benn, Rt Hon Tony	Clelland, David
Bennett, Andrew F	Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Benton, Joe	Coffey, Ann
Bermingham, Gerald	Cohen, Harry
Berry, Roger	Connarty, Michael
Betts, Clive	Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Blunkett, David	Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Boateng, Paul	Corbett, Robin
Boyes, Roland	Corbyn, Jeremy
Bradley, Keith	Corston, Jean
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Cousins, Jim
Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)	Cox, Tom

Cummings, John	Hutton, John
Cunliffe, Lawrence	Illsley, Eric
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)	Ingram, Adam
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John	Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Cunningham, Roseanna	Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Dafis, Cynog	Jamieson, David
Dalyell, Tam	Janner, Greville
Darling, Alistair	Johnston, Sir Russell
Davidson, Ian	Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)	Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)	Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)	Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)	Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)	Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Denham, John	Jowell, Tessa
Dewar, Donald	Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Dixon, Don	Keen, Alan
Dobson, Frank	Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Donohoe, Brian H	Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)
Dowd, Jim	Khabra, Piara S
Dunnachie, Jimmy	Kilfoyle, Peter
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth	Kirkwood, Archy
Eastham, Ken	Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Etherington, Bill	Lewis, Terry
Ewing, Mrs Margaret	Liddell, Mrs Helen
Fatchett, Derek	Litherland, Robert
Faulds, Andrew	Livingstone, Ken
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)	Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Fisher, Mark	Loyden, Eddie
Flynn, Paul	Lynne, Ms Liz
Foster, Rt Hon Derek	McAllion, John
Foster, Don (Bath)	McAvoy, Thomas
Foulkes, George	McCartney, Ian
Fraser, John	Macdonald, Calum
Fyfe, Maria	McFall, John
Galbraith, Sam	McKelvey, William
Galloway, George	Mackinlay, Andrew
Gapes, Mike	McLeish, Henry
Garrett, John	Maclennan, Robert
George, Bruce	McMaster, Gordon
Gerard, Neil	McNamara, Kevin
Godman, Dr Norman A	MacShane, Denis
Godsiff, Roger	McWilliam, John
Golding, Mrs Llin	Madden, Max
Gordon, Mildred	Maddock, Diana
Graham, Thomas	Mahon, Alice
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)	Mallon, Seamus
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)	Mandelson, Peter
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)	Marek, Dr John
Grocott, Bruce	Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Gunnell, John	Martin, Michael J (Springburn)
Hain, Peter	Martlew, Eric
Hall, Mike	Maxton, John
Hanson, David	Meacher, Michael
Hardy, Peter	Meale, Alan
Harman, Ms Harriet	Michael, Alun
Harvey, Nick	Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy	Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Henderson, Doug	Milburn, Alan
Heppell, John	Miller, Andrew
Hill, Keith (Streatham)	Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Hinchliffe, David	Moonie, Dr Lewis
Hodge, Margaret	Morgan, Rhodri
Hoey, Kate	Morley, Elliot
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)	Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)
Home Robertson, John	Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Hood, Jimmy	Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Hoon, Geoffrey	Mowlam, Marjorie
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)	Mudie, George
Howarth, George (Knowsley North)	Mullin, Chris
Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)	Murphy, Paul
Hoyle, Doug	Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)	O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)	O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)	O'Hara, Edward
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)	Olner, Bill

O'Neill, Martin	Soley, Clive
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley	Spearing, Nigel
Pearson, Ian	Spellar, John
Pendry, Tom	Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
Pickthall, Colin	Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Pike, Peter L	Steinberg, Gerry
Pope, Greg	Stevenson, George
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)	Stott, Roger
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)	Strang, Dr. Gavin
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)	Straw, Jack
Prescott, Rt Hon John	Sutcliffe, Gerry
Primarolo, Dawn	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Purchase, Ken	Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Quin, Ms Joyce	Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Radice, Giles	Timms, Stephen
Randall, Stuart	Tipping, Paddy
Raynsford, Nick	Touhig, Don
Redmond, Martin	Trimble, David
Reid, Dr John	Turner, Dennis
Rendel, David	Tyler, Paul
Robertson, George (Hamilton)	Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)	Walley, Joan
	Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Roche, Mrs Barbara	Wareing Robert N
Rogers, Allan	Watson, Mike
Rooker, Jeff	Welsh, Andrew
Rooney, Terry	Wicks, Malcolm
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)	Wigley, Dafydd
Rowlands, Ted
Ruddock, Joan	Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)
	Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)
Salmond, Alex	Wilson, Brian
Sedgemore, Brian	Winnick, David
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert	Wise, Audrey
Shore, Rt Hon Peter	Worthington, Tony
Short, Clare	Wray, Jimmy
Simpson, Alan	Wright, Dr Tony
Skinner, Dennis	Young, David (Bolton SE)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)	Tellers for the Ayes:
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)	Mr. John Evans and Ms Angela Eagle.
Snape, Peter

NOES
Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)	Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan	Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Alexander, Richard	Browning, Mrs Angela
Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)	Budgen, Nicholas
Allason, Rupert (Torbay)	Burns, Simon
Amess, David	Burt, Alistair
Ancram, Michael	Butler, Peter
Arbuthnot, James	Butterfill, John
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)	Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Ashby, David	Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Atkins, Rt Hon Robert	Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)	Carrington, Matthew
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)	Cash, William
Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)	Chapman, Sir Sydney
Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)	Clappison, James
Baldry, Tony	Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)	Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Bates, Michael	Coe, Sebastian
Batiste, Spencer	Congdon, David
Bellingham, Henry	Conway, Derek
Bendall, Vivian	Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Beresford, Sir Paul	Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas	Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Booth, Hartley	Cormack, Sir Patrick
Boswell, Tim	Couchman, James
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)	Cran, James
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia	Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Bowden, Sir Andrew	Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Bowis, John	Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes	Davis, David (Boothferry)
Brandreth, Gyles	Deva, Nirj Joseph
Brazier, Julian	Devlin, Tim
Bright, Sir Graham	Dicks, Terry

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen	Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James	Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Dover, Den	Legg, Barry
Duncan, Alan	Leigh, Edward
Duncan-Smith, Iain	Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Dunn, Bob	Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Durant, Sir Anthony	Lidington, David
Eggar, Rt Hon Tim	Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Elletson, Harold	Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)	Lord, Michael
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)	Luff, Peter
Evennett, David	Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Faber, David	MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Fenner, Dame Peggy	Maclean, Rt Hon David
Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)	McLoughlin, Patrick
Forth, Eric	Madel, Sir David
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman	Maitland, Lady Olga
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)	Malone, Gerald
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger	Mans, Keith
French, Douglas	Marlow, Tony
Gale, Roger	Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan	Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Garnier, Edward	Mates, Michael
Gillan, Cheryl	Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair	Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles	Mellor, Rt Hon David
Gorman, Mrs Teresa	Merchant, Piers
Gorst, Sir John	Mills, Iain
Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)	Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)	Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)	Moate, Sir Roger
Grylls, Sir Michael	Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn	Moss, Malcolm
Hague, Rt Hon William	Needham, Rt Hon Richard
Hamilton, Sir Archibald	Nelson, Anthony
Hampson, Dr Keith	Neubert, Sir Michael
Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy	Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Hannam, Sir John	Nicholls, Patrick
Hargreaves, Andrew	Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Harris, David	Norris, Steve
Haselhurst, Sir Alan	Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Hawkins, Nick	Oppenheim, Phillip
Hayes, Jerry	Ottaway, Richard
Heald, Oliver	Page, Richard
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward	Paice, James
Heathcoat-Amory, David	Patrick, Sir Irvine
Hendry, Charles	Pawsey, James
Hicks, Robert	Pickles, Eric
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence	Porter, David (Waveney)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)	Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Horam, John	Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Richards, Rod
Howard, Rt Hon Michael	Riddick, Graham
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)	Robathan, Andrew
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)	Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas	Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Jack, Michael	Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)	Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Jenkin, Bernard	Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Jessel, Toby	Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey	Sackville, Tom
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)	Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)	Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael	Shaw, David (Dover)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine	Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Key, Robert	Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
King, Rt Hon Tom	Shersby, Sir Michael
Kirkhope, Timothy	Sims, Roger
Knapman, Roger	Skeet, Sir Trevor
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)	Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)	Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)	Soames, Nicholas
Knox, Sir David	Speed, Sir Keith
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)	Spencer, Sir Derek
Lait, Mrs Jacqui	Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman	Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Spink, Dr Robert	Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Spring, Richard	Viggers, Peter
Sproat, Iain	Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)	Walden, George
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John	Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Steen, Anthony	Waller, Gary
Stephen, Michael	Ward, John
Stern, Michael	Waterson, Nigel
Streeter, Gary	Watts, John
Sumberg, David	Wells, Bowen
Sweeney, Walter	Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John
	Whitney, Ray
Tapsell, Sir Peter	Whittingdale, John
Taylor, Ian (Esher)	Widdecombe, Ann
Taylor, John M (Solihull)	Wiggin, Sir Jerry
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)	Wilkinson, John
Thomason, Roy	Willetts, David
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)	Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm	Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)	Wood, Timothy
Tracey, Richard	Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Tredinnick, David
Trend, Michael	Tellers for the Noes:
Trotter, Neville	Mr. Michael Fabricant and Mr. Jacques Arnold.
Twinn, Dr Ian

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendment proposed: (b), in line 6, at end add `and further that a Member with a paid interest should not initiate or participate in, including attendance, a delegation where the problem affects only the body from which he has a paid interest.'.—[Mrs. Ann Taylor.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 289, Noes 264.

Division No. 238]	[8.30 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane	Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Adams, Mrs Irene	Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Ainger, Nick	Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)	Campbell-Savours, D N
Allen, Graham	Canavan, Dennis
Alton, David	Cann, Jamie
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)	Chidgey, David
Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)	Chisholm, Malcolm
Armstrong, Hilary	Church, Judith
Ashton, Joe	Clapham, Michael
Austin-Walker, John	Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)	Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Barnes, Harry	Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Barron, Kevin	Clelland, David
Battle, John	Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Bayley, Hugh	Coffey, Ann
Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret	Cohen, Harry
Beith,Rt Hon A J	Connarty, Michael
Bell, Stuart	Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Benn, Rt Hon Tony	Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Benton, Joe	Corbett, Robin
Bermingham, Gerald	Corbyn, Jeremy
Berry, Roger	Corston, Jean
Betts, Clive	Cousins, Jim
Blunkett, David	Cox, Tom
Boateng, Paul	Cummings, John
Boyes, Roland	Cunliffe, Lawrence
Bradley, Keith	Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)	Cunningham, Roseanna
Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)	Dafis, Cynog
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)	Dalyell, Tam
Burden, Richard	Darling, Alistair
Byers, Stephen	Davidson, Ian
Caborn, Richard	Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Callaghan, Jim	Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)	Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)	Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Denham.John	Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Dewar, Donald	Jowell, Tessa
Dixon, Don	Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Dobson, Frank	Keen, Alan
Donohoe, Brian H	Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Dowd, Jim	Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)
Dunnachie, Jimmy	Khabra, Piara S
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth	Kilfoyle, Peter
Eagle, Ms Angela	kirkwood, Archy
Eastham, Ken	Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Etherington, Bill	Lewis, Terry
Evans, John (St Helens N)	Liddell, Mrs Helen
Ewing, Mrs Margaret	Litherland, Robert
Fatchett, Derek	Livingstone, Ken
Faulds, Andrew	Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)	Loyden, Eddie
Fisher, Mark	Lynne, Ms Liz
Flynn, Paul	McAllion, John
Foster, Rt Hon Derek	McAvoy, Thomas
Foster, Don (Bath)	McCartney, Ian
Foulkes, George	Macdonald, Calum
Fraser, John	McFall, John
Fyfe, Maria	McKelvey, William
Galbraith, Sam	Mackinlay, Andrew
Galloway, George	McLeish, Henry
Gapes, Mike	Maclennan, Robert
Garrett, John	McMaster, Gordon
George, Bruce	McNamara, Kevin
Gerrard, Neil	MacShane, Denis
Godman, Dr Norman A	McWilliam, John
Godsiff, Roger	Madden, Max
Golding, Mrs Llin	Maddock, Diana
Gordon, Mildred	Mahon, Alice
Graham, Thomas	Mandelson, Peter
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)	Marek, Dr John
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)	Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)	Martin, Michael J (Springburn)
Grocott, Bruce	Martlew, Eric
Gunnell, John	Maxton, John
Hain, Peter	Meacher, Michael
Hanson, David	Meale, Alan
Hardy, Peter	Michael, Alun
Harman, Ms Harriet	Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Harvey, Nick	Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy	Milburn, Alan
Henderson, Doug	Miller, Andrew
Heppell, John	Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Hill, Keith (Streatham)	Moonie, Dr Lewis
Hinchliffe, David	Morgan, Rhodri
Hodge, Margaret	Morley, Elliot
Hoey, Kate	Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)	Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Home Robertson, John	Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Hood, Jimmy	Mowlam, Marjorie
Hoon, Geoffrey	Mudie, George
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)	Mullin, Chris
Howarth, George (Knowsley North)	Murphy, Paul
Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)	Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Hoyle, Doug	O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)	O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)	O'Hara, Edward
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)	Olner, Bill
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)	O'Neill, Martin
Hutton, John	Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Illsley, Eric	Pearson, Ian
Ingram, Adam	Pendry, Tom
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)	Pickthall, Colin
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)	Pike, Peter L
Jamieson, David	Pope, Greg
Janner, Greville	Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Johnston, Sir Russell	Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)	Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)	Prescott, Rt Hon John
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)	Primarolo, Dawn

Purchase, Ken	Stevenson, George
Quin, Ms Joyce	Stott, Roger
Radice, Giles	Strang, Dr. Gavin
Randall, Stuart	Straw, Jack
Raynsford, Nick	Sutcliffe, Gerry
Redmond, Martin	Sweeney, Walter
Reid, Dr John	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Rendel, David	Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)	Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)	Timms, Stephen
Roche, Mrs Barbara	Tipping, Paddy
Rogers, Allan	Touhig, Don
Rooker, Jeff	Trimble, David
Rooney, Terry	Turner, Dennis
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)	Tyler, Paul
Rowlands, Ted	Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold
Ruddock, Joan	Walley, Joan
Salmond, Alex	Wareing, Robert N
Sedgemore, Brian	Watson, Mike
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert	Welsh, Andrew
Shore, Rt Hon Peter	Wicks, Malcolm
	Wigley, Dafydd
Short, Clare	Williams, Rt Hon Alan (SW'n W)
Simpson, Alan	Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)
Skinner, Dennis	Wilson, Brian
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)	Winnick, David
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)	Wise, Audrey
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)	Worthington, Tony
Snape, Peter	Wray, Jimmy
Soley, Clive	Wright, Dr Tony
Spearing, Nigel	Young, David (Bolton SE)
Spellar, John
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)	Tellers for the Ayes:
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David	Mr. Mike Hall and Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.
Steinberg, Gerry

NOES
Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)	Butterfill, John
Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan	Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Alexander, Richard	Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)	Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Allason, Rupert (Torbay)	Carrington, Matthew
Amess, David	Cash, William
Ancram, Michael	Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Arbuthnot, James	Chapman, Sir Sydney
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Clappison, James
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grove)	Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Ashby, David	Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Atkins, Rt Hon Robert	Coe, Sebastian
Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)	Colvin, Michael
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)	Congdon, David
Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)	Conway, Derek
Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)	Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Baldry, Tony	Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)	Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Bates, Michael	Cormack, Sir Patrick
Batiste, Spencer	Couchman, James
Bellingham, Henry	Cran, James
Bendall, Vivian	Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Beresford, Sir Paul	Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas	Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Booth, Hartley	Davis, David (Boothferry)
Boswell, Tim	Deva, Nirj Joseph
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)	Devlin, Tim
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia	Dicks, Terry
Bowis, John	Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes	Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Brandreth, Gyles	Dover, Den
Brazier, Julian	Duncan, Alan
Bright, Sir Graham	Duncan-Smith, Iain
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter	Dunn, Bob
Browning, Mrs Angela	Durant, Sir Anthony
Budgen, Nicholas	Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Burns, Simon	Elletson, Harold
Burt, Alistair	Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Butler, Peter	Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)	Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Evennett, David	MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Faber, David	MacKay, Andrew
Fabricant, Michael	Maclean, Rt Hon David
Fenner, Dame Peggy	McLoughlin, Patrick
Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)	Madel, Sir David
Forth, Eric	Maitland, Lady Olga
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman	Malone, Gerald
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)	Mans, Keith
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger	Marlow, Tony
French, Douglas	Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Gale, Roger	Mates, Michael
Gallie, Phil	Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan	Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Garnier, Edward	Mellor, Rt Hon David
Gillan, Cheryl	Merchant, Piers
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair	Mills, Iain
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles	Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa	Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Grant Sir A (SW Cambs)	Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)	Moss, Malcolm
Greenway, John (Ryedale)	Nelson, Anthony
Grylls, Sir Michael	Neubert, Sir Michael
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn	Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Hague, Rt Hon William	Nicholls, Patrick
Hamilton, Sir Archibald	Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Hampson, Dr Keith	Norris, Steve
Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy	Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Hannam, Sir John	Oppenheim, Phillip
Hargreaves, Andrew	Ottaway, Richard
Harris, David	Page, Richard
Haselhurst, Sir Alan	Paice, James
Hawkins, Nick	Patnick, Sir Irvine
Heald, Oliver	Pawsey, James
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward	Pickles, Eric
Heathcoat-Amory, David	Porter, David (Waveney)
Hendry, Charles	Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Hicks, Robert	Rathbone, Tim
Hill, James (Southampton Test)	Redwood, Rt Hon John
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)	Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Horam, John	Richards, Rod
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Riddick, Graham
Howard, Rt Hon Michael	Robathan, Andrew
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)	Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas	Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Jack, Michael	Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)	Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Jenkin, Bernard	Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Jessel, Toby	Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey	Sackville, Tom
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)	Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)	Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael	Shaw, David (Dover)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine	Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Key, Robert	Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
King, Rt Hon Tom	Shersby, Sir Michael
Kirkhope, Timothy	Sims, Floger
Knapman, Roger	Skeet, Sir Trevor
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)	Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)	Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)	Soames, Nicholas
Knox, Sir David	Speed, Sir Keith
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)	Spencer, Sir Derek
Lait, Mrs Jacqui	Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman	Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Lang, Rt Hon Ian	Spink, Dr Robert
Lawrence, Sir Ivan	Spring, Richard
Legg, Barry	Sproat, Iain
Leigh, Edward	Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark	Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)	Steen, Anthony
Lidington, David	Stern, Michael
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter	Stewart, Allan
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)	Streeter, Gary
Lord, Michael	Sumberg, David
Luff, Peter	Sweeney, Walter

Tapsell, Sir Peter	Waterson, Nigel
Taylor, Ian (Esher)	Watts, John
Taylor, John M (Solihull)	Wells, Bowen
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)	Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John
Thomason, Roy	Whitney, Ray
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)	Whittingdale, John
Thornton, Sir Malcolm	Widdecombe, Ann
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)	Wiggin, Sir Jerry
Tracey, Richard	Wilkinson, John
Trend, Michael	Willetts, David
Trotter, Neville	Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Twim, Dr Ian	Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard	Wood, Timothy
Viggers, Peter	Yeo, Tim
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William	Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Walden, George
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)	Tellers for the Noes:
Waller, Gary	Mr. Michael Brown and Mr. Robert G. Hughes.
Ward, John

Question accordingly agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, agreed to.

Resolved, That this House agrees with the recommendations in the Second Report from the Select Committee on Standards in Public Life (House of Commons Paper No. 816) relating to the cessation of paid advocacy (paragraph 54); and further that a Member with a paid interest should not initiate or participate in, including attendance, a delegation where the problem affects only the body from which he has a paid interest.

Ordered, That— (1) Standing Order No. 128 (Select Committee on Members' Interests) be repealed; (2) Standing Order No. 121 (Committee of Privileges) be repealed when the Committee of Privileges shall have reported to the House in respect of the matters of the complaints referred to it; and (3) Standing Orders (Committee on Standards and Privileges) and (Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards) below be made. Standing Order (Committee on Standards and Privileges) (1) There shall be a select committee, called the Committee on Standards and Privileges—

1. (a) to consider specific matters relating to privileges referred to it by the House;
2. (b) to oversee the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards; to examine the arrangements proposed by the Commissioner for the compilation, maintenance and accessibility of the Register of Members' Interests and any other registers of interest established by the House; to review from time to time the form and content of those registers; and to consider any specific complaints made in relation to the registering or declaring of interests referred to it by the Commissioner; and
3. (c) to consider any matter relating to the conduct of Members, including specific complaints in relation to alleged breaches in any code of conduct to which the House has agreed and which have been drawn to the committee's attention by the Commissioner; and to recommend any modifications to such code of conduct as may from time to time appear to be necessary.

(2) The committee shall consist of eleven Members, of whom five shall be a quorum. (3) Unless the House otherwise orders, each Member nominated to the committee shall continue to be a member of it for the remainder of the Parliament. (4) The committee shall have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of no more than seven Members, of whom three shall be a quorum, and to refer to such sub-committees any of the matters referred to the committee; and shall appoint one such sub-committee to receive reports from the Commissioner relating to investigations into specific complaints. (5) The committee and any sub-committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, to report from time to time and to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the committee's order of reference. (6) The committee shall have power to order the attendance of any Member before the committee or any sub-committee and to require that specific documents or records in the possession of a Member relating to its inquiries, or to the inquiries of a sub-committee or of the Commissioner, be laid before the committee or any sub-committee. (7) The committee shall have power to refuse to allow proceedings to which strangers are admitted to be broadcast. (8) Mr. Attorney General, the Lord Advocate, Mr. Solicitor General and Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland, being Members of the House, may attend the committee or any sub-committee, may take part in deliberations, may receive committee or sub-committee papers and may give such other assistance to the committee or sub-committee as may be appropriate, but shall not vote or make any motion or move any amendment. Standing Order (Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards) (1) There shall be an officer of this House, called the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, who shall be appointed by the House. (2) The principal duties of the Commissioner shall be—

1. (a) to maintain the Register of Members' Interests and any other registers of interest established by the House, and to make such arrangements for the compilation, maintenance and accessibility of those registers as are approved by the Committee on Standards and Privileges or an appropriate sub-committee thereof;
2. (b) to provide advice confidentially to Members and other persons or bodies subject to registration on matters relating to the registration of individual interests;
3. (c) to advise the Committee on Standards and Privileges, its sub-committees and individual Members on the interpretation of any code of conduct to which the House has agreed and on questions of propriety;
4. (d) to monitor the operation of such code and registers, and to make recommendations thereon to the Committee on Standards and Privileges or an appropriate sub-committee thereof; and
5. (e) to receive and, if he thinks fit, investigate specific complaints from Members and from members of the public in respect of—

1. (i) the registration or declaration of interests, or
2. (ii) other aspects of the propriety of a Member's conduct, and to report to the Committee on Standards and Privileges or to an appropriate sub-committee thereof.

(3) The Commissioner may be dismissed by resolution of the House.—[Mr. Newton.]