Such a reading of the provision could limit the kinds of issues many Labour MPs could raise in the House or in questions or motions.That interpretation appears to be cut down, however, by another part of the report, saying that sponsored MPs would not be covered by the ban “if trade union donations to a constituency party are not linked in any way to the member’s candidacy”. has received, is receiving or expects to receive.”Some Tory MPs suggested yesterday that this could catch trade union sponsorship of Labour MPs. New wording to be added to the so-called 1947 Resolution, which deals with advocacy for payment, reads as follows: “And that in particular no member of this House shall, in consideration of any remuneration, fee, payment, reward or benefit in kind, direct or indirect, which the Member … It goes way beyond Nolan,” he said.The approach could have some unforeseen effects. The distinction Lord Nolan had made between single- client consultancies, which he said should be permitted, and multi-client consultancies, which should not, was “especially difficult to understand”, the MPs said.Iain Duncan-Smith, the Tory member who pushed hardest for the alternative of a ban on paid “advocacy” – without any need to declare any outside earnings, as Nolan had recommended – said yesterday the “cash for questions” affair started the Nolan inquiry off but it had turned out to be a whitewash.”Saying multi-client consultancies should be banned could be easily circumvented by MPs becoming directors of the individual company clients Under our report, advocacy is out. PATRICIA WYNN DAVIES

Political Correspondent
The actions of Members of Parliament, rather than what kinds of paid outside relationships should be allowed, lie at the heart of yesterday’s select committee report.Such a formula gets round some awkward problems of definition bequeathed by the recommendations of Lord Nolan’s Committee on Standards in Public Life, the report says. Gordon Scott, part of the company’s design section, said: “I could go into any shop that had an ultra-violet light machine with a fist full of counterfeit money and they would accept it.” Because of the problem the company is about to produce a new anti-forgery device that uses a normal light and magnifying glass..

But again counterfeiters have copied the Bank of England and no longer use paper with starch.ACO Electronics Ltd, who manufacture UV machines, acknowledge the shortcomings. Last year, about pounds 20,000 was sent to NCIS which had been wrongly identified as fake money.The other common device used, the marker pen, is supposed to spot dud money by leaving a brown stain in reaction to starched paper. However Det Sgt Putman said that all forgers now use dull, anti-fluorescent paper.Genuine money can also be “corrupted” if it comes into contact with the whitener, which is found in substances such as washing powder. The machine, which costs from pounds 30, is supposed to identify fakes which, unlike the genuine article, contain chemicals which will fluoresce under the light. Last year pounds 18m was seized.The most popular anti-counterfeit currency device uses UV light to illuminate the notes. They are doubly unreliable because they can reject genuine notes and allow through counterfeit ones.

Some crime prevention officers are still recommending the pens and ultra-violet [UV] lights – we tell them they are totally unreliable.” In the three years to 1994, the amount of counterfeit money circulating mushroomed by more than 200 per cent. But despite the machines’ limitations some police forces are continuing to recommend their use and manufacturers still sell them.Detective Sergeant Stephen Putman, of the National Criminal Intelligence Service’s (NCIS) counterfeit currency unit said: “These devices are bad news because they don’t work They’re a nonsense really. JASON BENNETTO

Crime Correspondent
The next time the pub landlord or supermarket check-out worker tells you your tenner is a dud, don’t despair, they have almost certainly got it wrong.Most anti-forgery devices used by supermarkets, shops, pubs and clubs to detect fake money are next to useless and can give false readings, a senior member of the national counterfeit currency unit warned yesterday. In the US, the neuroscientist Simon Le Vay showed in 1991 that a region of the brain related to sexual preference was smaller in women and homosexual men than in heterosexual males.Earlier this week, other US researchers claimed they had confirmed there are genetic differences between male heterosexuals and homosexuals.But Marc Breedlove, a neurobiologist from the University of California, said the lay public should not “assume that a structural difference in the brain is the immutable signature of purely biological forces”.Only if a difference between the genders were found in newborn or foetal brains could it safely be ascribed to non-social factors, he said.Dr Swaab rejected a genetic cause, saying: “There is no indication that it runs in families.”. Holland permits official documents to be changed after someone has had a sex-change operation.Dr Swaab found that the difference in the brain persisted regardless of the person’s sexual preferences.

It is related solely to whether one feels oneself to be male or female.The discovery, reported in today’s issue of Nature, confirms that the most important human sexual organ is the brain. There is something different about them.” He said society should accept transsexuals’ requests to have their birth certificates and passports changed to reflect what they feel to be their true gender. The region was of female size, or smaller, in six male-to-female transsexuals whose brains were examined post-mortem.Dr Swaab said yesterday: “Transsexuals are right that they feel different. TOM WILKIE

Science Editor
Transsexuals may be right in saying they feel different, because they have brains more like a woman’s than a man’s, according to scientists in The Netherlands.Dr Dick Swaab, from the Netherlands Institute for Brain Research, Amsterdam, found a part of the brain important for sexual behaviour is larger in men than in women. As Mr Anyaoku acknowledged yesterday, in presenting the 1995 Commonwealth Report, Sierra Leone and Gambia also remain under military rule, “with all the consequences for internal tension and human rights”.Will of steel, page 3. The Commonwealth’s hands are tied, because, as officials point out, it is “not a rule-based organisation”. Even South Africa was never kicked out but left of its own accord.Nigeria is by no means the only Commonwealth offender against human rights.

There have been calls for the expulsion of Nigeria from the Commonwealth.In practice, it is likely that the carrot will be more in evidence than the stick. But he described the anouncement this week of the death sentence on the Nigerian writer, Ken Saro-Wiwa, as “part of the unfolding tragedy” in Nigeria, and appealed to Nigeria’s leader, General Sani Abacha, to save Mr Saro-Wiwa’s life.Mr Anyaoku, a former Nigerian foreign minister, said: “Democracy and development are not alternatives, but rather two sides of the same coin.”Malcolm Rifkind, the Foreign Secretary, said he hoped that the Commonwealth conference would “indicate the very strong values that are necessary to be upheld if Commonwealth membership is to be seen as something which is appropriate”.Wole Soyinka, the Nobel prize-winning Nigerian playwright, has called for the threat of “withdrawal of diplomatic relations and severe economic sanctions” against the military government. STEVE CRAWSHAW

The Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, Chief Emeka Anyaoku, said yesterday that he hopes for a tough stance on Nigeria, including “actions that go well beyond rhetoric”, when Commonwealth leaders meet in New Zealand next week.
Mr Anyaoku said he did not want to prejudice the outcome of the discussions at Auckland. But it was also stressed that he had always been against Parliament being filled with purely professional politicians and agreed with the Nolan committee’s view that the Commons’ expertise was enriched by those without outside business or other interests.Heart of the matter, page 2Leading article, page22. “They go substantially further than Nolan to address public concern relating to procedures, and will do much to overcome difficulties in the perception of politicians that have arisen.”Mr Major was said by aides “strongly” to support the distinction drawn by the select committee between payments for acting on behalf of outside bodies and payments for offering advice.