Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Walter Sweeney (Vale of Glamorgan): Given that the district auditor has cleared my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg) of any misconduct, will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning all Opposition Members who, under the cloak of parliamentary privilege, have attacked my hon. Friend and damaged his reputation in the eyes of the public? Will my right hon. Friend urge those Opposition Members to apologise, and to make clear their support for my hon. Friend?
Mr. Gummer: It seems to me that it is for Labour Members to bear it in mind that, in rushing to judgment on the interim report, they have found themselves making a blanket condemnation which turns out to be, at the very least, variable. They should recognise that they need to be reticent today as well.
One of the properties of parliamentary privilege is that it is a privilege, and privileges need to be respected. I think that the public will recognise that Labour Members--including those who have spoken from a sedentary position--do not respect parliamentary privilege as a privilege, but use it as a mechanism for party political advantage.
Mr. John McWilliam (Blaydon):
Does the Secretary of State accept from a former commissioner for local authority accounts in Scotland that, if Westminster had been in Scotland, the case would not have dragged on for so long, and there would have been no interim report? There would have been one report, and the Secretary of State would have had a duty to implement it.
Does the right hon. Gentleman also accept that, during the Committee stage of the Bill that became the Local Government Finance Act 1982, the Government opposed amendments tabled by Opposition Members, including me, that would have made it clear that those investigating the matter--the district auditor and his staff--were responsible for producing a report to which the Secretary of State would have had a duty to reply? The Government, however, amended the Bill to provide for an appeal to the court. Would not someone in Scotland who did what is
alleged to have been done in Westminster have been surcharged long ago? The Government have weakened the legislation.
Mr. Gummer:
I thought it better to be consistent in not discussing whether the process could be improved.I do not think that it would be proper to do that while the matter was being investigated, for obvious reasons.
I cannot claim to be an expert on the details of the Scottish procedures, but I think that most people would agree that, when we are dealing with a clear statement from someone who, in this context, has been able to act as judge and jury, it is not unreasonable for an appeal to take place. That appeal has been granted by the House, and I feel that the House owes it to itself--let alone anyone else--to respect the procedures it has created, and to allow those concerned to proceed to court--with the clear undertaking that, if they are found guilty, they will be condemned by all of us, irrespective of the party to which we belong.
Mrs. Teresa Gorman (Billericay):
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Mr. Magill, whose report we are considering, is an accountant, not a lawyer, and that his proper duty was to examine the financial aspects of the case, rather than seeking to make inflammatory statements in judging those involved?
Will he please look into the issue of the inordinate length of the proceedings? That placed appalling pressure on officers and elected members, which led to the suicide of an elected member whose death has been shown to be unnecessary--in the sense that he left a suicide note saying that this matter was the cause of his suicide. Opposition Members are gloating, but we should remember the pressures that these people were under.
Mr. Gummer:
The allegations against these individuals are extremely serious. If they are found guilty, they will be guilty of serious misdemeanours. These matters take time, and I am not one of those who immediately rushes to judgment, even on the terms and the time that has been taken by the auditor. It will be for the courts to decide on this matter. However, I agree with my hon. Friend that, in such circumstances, we all ought to pay a little heed to the fact that to attack those who are later found innocent is to undermine our standing with the public in general.
Mr. Clive Betts (Sheffield, Attercliffe):
May I take the Secretary of State back to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and ask him to reflect on the Government's knowledge and involvement in this matter? First, will he confirm that, throughout the time that Westminster council operated its homes sales policy, each year a housing investment programme statement containing details of that policy would have been submitted to the then Secretary of State and his officials for consideration and consultation? Therefore, the Government knew all about the policy.
Secondly, will he confirm that certain aspects of the designated sales policy would have needed--and, indeed, received--the civic approval of the Secretary of State at the time? Therefore is it not true that Ministers are also up to their ears in this sorry and sordid mess?
Mr. Gummer:
I know of no circumstances that would cause a difference between the treatment of Westminster and that of any other council of any other political kind. I notice that the Labour party is busy trying to spread a smear as widely as it can on grounds that are self-evidently nonsense. The hon. Gentleman, with his experience in Sheffield and his dealings there, should be ashamed of himself.
Madam Speaker:
Order. This matter must now be brought to a close and we must move to our next item of business.
Mrs. Ann Taylor (Dewsbury):
May I ask the Leader of the House for details of future business?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton):
The business for next week will be as follows:
Monday 13 May--Opposition Day [12th allotted day]. Until about 7 o'clock, there will be a debate on the Northern Ireland economy on a motion in the name of the Ulster Unionists. That will be followed by a debate on the Government's cattle disposal scheme, on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats.
Tuesday 14 May--Opposition Day [13th allotted day]. There will be a debate on standards in education, on an Opposition motion. That will be followed by motions relating to the Education (Grants for Nursery Education) (England) Regulations and the Education (Grants for Education Support and Training: Nursery Education) (England) Regulations.
Wednesday 15 May--From 9.30 until 10.30 and from 1 o'clock until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House. That will be followed in the afternoon by a debate on the common agricultural policy and other agricultural issues on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. That debate will be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 16 May. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
Friday 17 May--Debate on education and training of 16 to 19-year-olds, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The provisional business for the following week will be as follows:
Monday 20 May--Remaining stages of the Reserve Forces Bill [Lords].
Tuesday 21 May--Second Reading of the Defamation Bill [Lords], followed by proceedings on the following Bills, which are consolidation measures: the Police Bill [Lords], the Industrial Tribunals Bill [Lords], and the Employment Rights Bill [Lords].
The Chairman of Ways and Means is expected to name opposed private business for consideration at 7 o'clock.
Wednesday 22 May--Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House. That includes the three-hour pre-recess debate with which the House is now familiar.
In the afternoon, until 7 o'clock, debate on developments in the Civil Service. Motion on the Council Tax Limitation (England) (Maximum Amounts) Order. The House may also be asked to consider any Lords messages that may be received.
The House will rise for the spring Adjournment on Wednesday 22 May until Tuesday 4 June.
The House will also wish to know that the following European Standing Committees will meet at 10.30 am on Wednesday 15 May to consider European Community Documents as follows:
European Standing Committee A: There will be a debate on agricultural prices for 1996-97 and supplementary payment to sheep producers in Ireland.
European Standing Committee B: There will be a debate on fraud. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
The House may also wish to know that it is proposed that on Wednesday 22 May there will be a debate on transport pricing in European Standing Committee A.
Finally, the House may wish to be reminded that it will rise for the Spring Adjournment on Wednesday 22 May until Tuesday 4 June.
[Wednesday 15 May:
European Standing Committee A--European Community documents: 5215/96, Agricultural Price Proposals 1996-97; unnumbered, Supplementary payment to sheep producers of the island of Ireland. Relevant European Legislation Committee Report: HC 51-xiv (1995-96) and HC 51-xviii (1995-96).
European Standing Committee B--European Community Document: 4512/96, Detection of Fraud and Irregularities. Relevant European Legislation Committee Report: HC 51 xv (1995-96) and HC 51-xviii (1995-96).
Debate on the common agricultural policy and other agricultural issues, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. Relevant documents: Council Document 5215/96 ADD 1, Volume 1 of 29 February 1996; Council Document 5215/96 ADD 2, Volume ll of 7 March 1996; Council Document 5215/96 ADD 3, Volume 111 of 18 March 1996; Explanatory Memorandum 5215/96 ADD1 & 2, Volumes 1 & 11 of 12 March 1996; Explanatory Memorandum 5215/96 ADD 3, Volume 111 of 12 March 1996 and the Commons Select Committee Report on Explanatory Memoranda 5215/96 ADD 1, 2 & 3 and Volumes 1, 11 & 111 of 27 March 1996 concerning agricultural prices for 1996/97 and Agriculture in the UK 1995.
4.6 pm
Next Section
| Index | Home Page |