Amendment made.

  Paragraph, as amended, agreed to.

  Paragraph 6 read, as follows:

    "Our conclusions are as follows:

    (i)    When it investigated a complaint against Mr Hamilton's failure to register his stay at the Ritz Hotel in Paris in the previous Parliament, the Select Committee on Members' Interests did not elicit the detailed evidence on Mr Hamilton's relationship with Mr Al Fayed and the campaign managed by Ian Greer Associates which the Commissioner's inquiry has now established. The relationship was essentially a business relationship in which Mr Hamilton advocated Mr Al Fayed's cause. He received material benefits. The visit should have been registered and Mr Hamilton must have known that it should have been.

    (ii)    We examined the evidence relating to the information which Mr Hamilton gave to the then President of the Board of Trade, Mr Heseltine. Mr Hamilton never gave away more information about his relationship with Mr Greer than he had to. The Commissioner's finding that Mr Heseltine was "deliberately misled" appears to us to be justified.

    (iii)  We accept the Commissioner's findings on Mr Hamilton's failures to declare his interests when dealing with Ministers and officials.

    (iv)  We recognise the force of the Commissioner's criticism of Mr Hamilton's acceptance of a commission payment for introducing a constituent to Mr Greer as well as a consultancy fee for representing that constituent's interests. Such actions do not appear to us to be contrary to the present rules of the House. We do not agree with the Commissioner's interpretation of the rules in this instance. We noted in our Seventh Report that we consider it to be inappropriate for a Member to receive a fee for introducing a constituency company to another company or organisation.

    (v)    The Commissioner found a variety of occasions, most of which are now admitted by Mr Hamilton, when he failed to register his interests. We draw attention to paragraph 813 of the Commissioner's report-

        "In addition to the stay at the Ritz (dealt with earlier) the main allegations against Mr Hamilton under this heading [alleged non-registration of interests] are considered below:

        (i)  In 1989 Mr and Mrs Hamilton spent a few days as guests of Mr Al Fayed on the estate of Balnagown Castle. This was clearly a benefit of substantial value and should, in my view, have been registered. Mr Hamilton regarded it as "private hospitality": but this is a concept not recognised by the Register and, given the lobbying he was conducting at the time on Mr Al Fayed's behalf, the benefit could certainly have been thought to affect his conduct as a Member.

        (ii)  Mr Hamilton acknowledged receiving two Harrods hampers - one in 1988 and one in 1989. By today's standards these would be registrable, but I am inclined to think that this may not have been the accepted position at the time.

        (iii)  Unlike most, if not all, other lobbyists, IGA regularly paid commissions to Members who introduced new business. In 1987/88 Mr Hamilton received an introduction commission of £4,000 and a consultancy fee of £7,500 in relation to the National Nuclear Corporation. He registered the latter but not the former, on the grounds that the introduction payment was ex gratia and unexpected. In my view there is no doubt that the introduction commission should have been registered since it might have been thought to affect Mr Hamilton's conduct as a Member. This was also the view of the Select Committee on Members' Interests at the time and, although the Committee recognised that the categorisation of the Register was unsatisfactory, they did not see this as a justification for a failure to register such payments.

        (iv)  In 1989 Mr Hamilton received an introduction fee from IGA of £6,000, which had been agreed in 1988, in respect of US Tobacco (UST). Since this was his second such fee, it could no longer be argued that it was wholly unexpected. It should, in my judgement have been registered during 1989 and, in any event, in January 1990 after the Registrar had specifically reminded Members at the end of 1989 of their obligation to declare single payments.

        (v)  Also in 1989 Mr Hamilton enjoyed a three night stay at a hotel in New York at the invitation of UST. This, I think, was a marginal case, since he was on Select Committee business and his accommodation would have been paid for anyway. Nevertheless, the benefit could still have been thought to affect his conduct as a Member and would have been better registered.

        (vi)  It has been suggested that the payment relating to UST was, in fact, a consultancy fee and not an introduction payment. The evidence to the inquiry of Mr Walter, the former UST executive was not conclusive on this point. But this is not an important distinction if, as is the case, the payment was registrable in either event.

        (vii)  In 1990 Mr Hamilton received £667 from Strategy Network International for a month's consultancy work before becoming a Minister. He suggests that this would have been disregarded, as being de minimis, in 1990 and that, in any case, he resigned his appointment within the four-week period allowed for the registration of a new interest. In my view it is spurious to argue that an interest acquired and relinquished within four weeks is non-registrable; and the amount involved was far from negligible. I conclude that it should have been registered."

    Cumulatively this list of omissions adds up to a casualness bordering on indifference or contempt towards the rules of the House on disclosure of interests."

  Amendment proposed, in line 9, at the end, to insert the words "We should however be cautious in taking account of this in this context since Mr Hamilton cannot be judged twice for the same offence."-(Mr Quentin Davies.)

  Question put, That the Amendment be made.

  The Committee divided.