§ Mr. David Shaw (Dover)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Two weeks ago, you said clearly that you wanted the Committee on Standards and Privileges to examine an issue in a transparent and open manner and the whole House supported you absolutely. Madam Speaker, would it concern you and your office to learn that a Committee member had taken a strong position in the battle between Tiny Rowland and Al-Fayed and had tabled 58 early-day motions on one side of the argument—namely, Mr. Al-Fayed's? In those circumstances, would it be in the interests of the House of Commons for that hon. Member to stand down from the Committee?
Madam SpeakerIt is a simple matter. The issue has been referred to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and it is now for him to make a recommendation to the Committee on Standards and Privileges.
§ Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You may recall a debate on private legislation when my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) referred to a practice in this place as a "constitutional outrage". Evidence has been provided since then that a lobbying organisation conducted activities, which were probably perfectly proper at the time, to frustrate legislation introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) designed to curb the promotion of that most deadly addictive drug, tobacco. As the rules have changed in the post-Nolan days, is it not appropriate to reconsider the Bill in Government time?
Madam SpeakerWould that it were a matter for me and that I had the authority to determine what the House considers in Government time. That is a matter for the Government, as the hon. Gentleman knows.