| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. The debate is becoming a little cantankerous. I ask hon. Members, however provoked they feel, to observe the highest standards of courtesy.
Mr. Jamieson: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.I hope that the Conservative Members who appear to be disturbed by the truth coming out about this matter will make their own contribution to the debate, and tell us what their part was in the matter.
We need a thorough investigation into the way in which those grants were made in the south-west. I am sure that any hon. Member representing the south-west would agree that we need to help genuine companies, those that can create real jobs and buy from other companies to create other jobs. That will not be achieved until the DTI makes known its plans to improve.
Mr. Sebastian Coe (Falmouth and Camborne):
I resent being limited to barely a few seconds in a discussion that centres on my constituency.
It is a matter of record that I drew attention to most of the issues that have been mentioned in the debate well in advance of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson). More than a year ago, I expressed my anxieties about the way in which the company had operated, and its subsequent liquidation, to one of my hon. Friend's predecessors at the Department of Trade and Industry, the Member for Bexhill and Battle(Mr. Wardle).
It is a matter of record that ROM-Data was given a grant to set up in my constituency in 1991--a year before the general election, a year before I was honoured with the stewardship of that constituency. The hon. Member for Devonport mentions the way in which the vetting procedure may or may not have taken place, and I know that that is the subject of a full and thorough inquiry within the DTI, which I instigated and asked for more than a year ago.
Several issues have been raised, but I do not wish to enter into those, as they will be the basis of that inquiry and the President of the Board of Trade has promised to report back to the House.
I want to tease out two or three issues. It would be odd for a Member of Parliament representing a constituency with higher levels of unemployment than in most parts of the country, to sit on his hands when confronted, in the space of three or four days, with the potential loss of170 jobs in his constituency. I very much doubt that the hon. Member for Devonport would have acted differently in those circumstances.
No local Member of Parliament has the ability to rubber-stamp or hand out a Government grant. There is a lengthy application process, in which many agencies in the constituency--and in this case the county--are involved. That is what happened in the case of ROM-Data. All types of agencies were involved, including economic development organisations. Jobs are important. No Member of Parliament will sit and do nothing when there is the potential for job losses on that scale in his or her constituency.
Broader issues should be discussed. The hon. Member for Devonport spoke of the need to vet grants. Of course that is paramount in any process. However, he has failed to say that, in my constituency, like his, and in much of the south-west, our lifeline is regional selective assistance and grants. That assistance should be provided.
I recently met an all-party group of councillors and local business men in my constituency. They said that they were aware of the way in which the ROM-Data case has been dealt with, and the way in which the hon. Member for Devonport has made mischief and slowed the process dramatically. I am delighted to be joined in the Chamber today by my fellow Conservative Members of Parliament from Cornwall and the south-west, who know that those delays have not been helped by the actions of the hon. Gentleman.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Phillip Oppenheim):
I have listened carefully to the points made by hon. Members this morning, and I shall attempt to deal with them in the short time available.
I refer at the outset to the allegation by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) that Mr. Holmes was a Department of Trade and Industry official. I state categorically that that was not the case.
I shall continue with some general remarks about the way in which the Department has approached the case. First, I make it absolutely clear that Ministers accepted from the beginning that it was important that the facts of what occurred should be investigated fully and properly, and that the results should be made known. My hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne(Mr. Coe) and others have been active in raising concerns about the case, and Ministers have been equally anxious to discover what has happened.
That is why the Department set up a formal investigation into the handling of the case as soon as problems became apparent, and why the Department drew the case to the attention of the Serious Fraud Office. Above all, it is vital that we know what happened and why, so that we can take effective action to ensure that there is no repetition.
Secondly, we have made it absolutely clear that we shall be open about what went wrong, both to ensure that we get to the bottom of what has been a lengthy and complex sequence of events, and, more importantly, to ensure that nothing is done to impede or prejudice in any way the investigation of the events by the Serious Fraud Office. That investigation is continuing, so I am limited in what I can say today about the company's actions, or about particular individuals who might be the subject of further proceedings. I also must not prejudge the further inquiries that are being made under the Department's internal disciplinary procedures.
However, I assure hon. Members that we intend to be open about the matter. That is why, as soon as it became clear that answers to earlier questions from the hon. Member for Devonport might have been based partly on inaccurate information supplied by officials, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade warned the House of that possibility. When, following further investigation, it became clear that that had occurred, he informed the House immediately. It is in that spirit of openness that my right hon. Friend has undertaken to report the findings of the Department's investigation to the House as soon as he is able to do so. That will not be long delayed.
The Department's internal report on its handling of the ROM-Data case has now been completed. Ministers have received the report only in the last few days. It deals with a series of complex events which must be considered carefully. However, Ministers remain committed to making the Department's findings public as soon as possible. The Department will also consider taking further action under its disciplinary procedures. That latter aspect,
together with the continuing investigations by the SFO, makes it difficult to say much about the role of individuals at this stage.
The DTI has rigorous procedures for handling public money, which are communicated to staff in extensive written guidance. The Department's financial procedures and systems are regularly checked by its internal auditors and the National Audit Office. My initial impression of the common theme running through the report's findings is that the main problems resulted from failings in the way in which the specific ROM-Data case was handled, rather than major deficiencies in the Department's overall systems and procedures--although clearly improvements can, and will, be made in a number of areas.
We shall consider how to implement the report's various recommendations for improvements in existing procedures once we have had the opportunity to consider them properly. They are essentially concerned with detailed additions to the existing systems and procedures. In light of the findings, the DTI will also pursue the necessary further inquiries under its internal procedures in order to establish whether and what disciplinary action should be taken against any staff members.
I had intended to run through the chronology of events at ROM-Data. However, as time is limited, and as most hon. Members are aware of that chronology, I shall not do so. I turn instead to the role played by my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne.
My hon. Friend was obviously concerned about the failure of an important local employer and a company which had received substantial sums of public money.As the constituency Member of Parliament, he had quite properly and assiduously supported the company's application to secure a loan guarantee scheme loan which offered an opportunity to protect jobs in his constituency. In so doing, he acted in the same manner as any hon. Member seeking to fulfil his proper role in this place.I find it difficult to believe that the hon. Member for Devonport would not have done the same thing in similar circumstances.
Mr. Jamieson:
I would have checked.
Mr. Oppenheim:
If the hon. Gentleman is saying that directors' backgrounds should be checked every time that Labour Members lobby for regional selective assistance or a loan guarantee scheme grant, I suggest that he conduct a poll of his right hon. and hon. Friends. I will be amazed if he can find one Labour Member who has done such a check.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |