CONDUCT OF THE RIGHT HONOURABLE MEMBER FOR SURREY EAST

That this House views with concern that, on the night of 7th March 1990, when the House was voting in a judicial role and supposedly under a 'free' vote, upon the Members' Interests proceedings against the honourable Member for Winchester, the Right honourable Member for Surrey East, a Queen's Counsel, as Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House, omitted to offer the House any Government sponsored alternative, other than to support the findings of the Select Committee on Members' Interests and to punish the honourable Member for Winchester; believes that this was in stark contrast to the many and varied alternative Government motions put before the House in the most recent votes on abortion (Order Paper, 24th April 1990); invites the Right honourable Member for Surrey East to explain how, in these special judicial circumstances, putting only a single Government sponsored motion of punishment to the House could be considered even remotely just; further calls upon him to assure the House that he did not offer to table exclusively a 'Take Note' Motion provided the honourable Member for Winchester would agree to commit in writing not to stand again at the next general election thus denying the people of the Winchester constituency their constitutional right to vote either for or against their sitting honourable Member; and recommends that if he does not make such a statement, this matter be submitted to the Privileges Committee before the people of Winchester are called again to vote at the polls.