House of Commons Hansard Debates for 9 May 1996 (pt 7)

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

9 May 1996 : Column 374

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?

9 May 1996 : Column 375

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.

Several hon. Members rose--

Madam Speaker: Order. This matter must now be brought to a close and we must move to our next item of business.

9 May 1996 : Column 376