| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mrs. Taylor: I understand my hon. Friend's concern about a serious matter that affects him and the families involved. I regret that I cannot find time for a debate in Government time. Perhaps my hon. Friend will consider applying for an Adjournment debate or even a Wednesday morning debate, as it is clear that he takes the issue seriously.
BILLS PRESENTED
European Communities (Amendment)
Mr. Secretary Cook, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Straw, Mr. Secretary Blunkett, Mrs. Secretary Beckett, Dr. John Cunningham, Mr. Secretary Robertson, Mrs. Ann Taylor and Mr. Doug Henderson, presented a Bill to make provision consequential on the Treaty signed at Amsterdam on 2nd October 1997 amending the Treaty on European Union, the Treaties establishing the European Communities and certain related Acts: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 71].
Secretary Marjorie Mowlam, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Straw, Mr. Secretary Robertson and Mr. Adam Ingram, presented a Bill to postpone the expiry and otherwise make amendments of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 72].
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House--
(i) approves the Sixth Report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges (HC 182);
(ii) accordingly suspends the honourable Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Robert N. Wareing) from the service of the House for one week, with suspension of his salary as a Member for that period; and
(iii) requires him to withdraw from the precincts of the House for that period.--[Mrs. Ann Taylor.]
4.46 pm
Mr. Robert N. Wareing (Liverpool, West Derby): I begin by offering my apologies to the House for failing four years ago to register a shareholding in a company under the name Robert Wareing Ltd., a shelf company listed on the public register at my home address and, of course, registered at Companies House. I hope that the House will accept that there was never any intention of concealment on my part. I receive no financial benefit of any kind and the choice of name and registered address was indeed the only reason this oversight came into the public domain.
Let me take a few moments of the House's time to explain the background and circumstances which have led to today's motion. On 28 May last, an anonymous letter posted in south Lancashire was sent to the Government Chief Whip. He held that letter until Tuesday 17 June, before he showed it to me. He said that he would show it to Sir Gordon Downey and I had no objection to that. The Government Chief Whip then said, "I will see you this evening." He made no attempt to see me that evening, but I looked him up in the Division Lobby when I was voting on the Local Government Finance Bill. Among 400 other people I was able only to ask him, "What did Sir Gordon say?" He told me that there had been a breach of the rules and he then said, "I will see you tomorrow." On 18 June I heard nothing from the Government Chief Whip and indeed I have not seen him from the time that I spoke to him in the Lobby on 17 June until now.
On Wednesday 18 June, the parliamentary Labour party passed a new rule allowing for suspension. I understand that my name was not mentioned at that meeting, but that afternoon I bumped into my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy) as I was coming out of the lift having taken constituents into the Strangers Gallery. She told me that the Government Chief Whip was planning to move my suspension at the parliamentary committee meeting that afternoon. I was in such a state--a state of great shock. I sent a letter to the Chief Whip. I had no response to that letter nor to two other letters that I sent him.
I was then presented with a statement, which I felt obliged to sign. I understand now how confessions are forced on people. The statement was drafted not by an hon. Member but by Mr. David Hill, a party apparatchik.
I signed it and was told to get myself off the premises as soon as possible. I was then in the presence of the Deputy Chief Whip.
I shall deal now with the matter of non-registration. I have never been asked by anybody why I ticked the "no" box on the registration form. The committee--not, the House should note, Sir Gordon Downey, who did not recommend any punishment--never asked me about the ticking of the "no" box. In fact, the committee never asked me anything because I was never called before it.
The reason why I ticked the "no" box--this is my first opportunity to explain--was that I believed that what I had was a retainer. That was maybe a misconception; perhaps I was wrong. I apologise for being wrong--but it was a misconception. I did not think that a retainer was within the definition of shareholding, and, of course, the company issued no shares. The retainer was paid back, with interest, from my own pocket. All the allegations in the anonymous letter were dismissed by Sir Gordon Downey and the Committee on Standards in Public Life--except the one of non-registration.
On 24 June, Sir Gordon Downey received a letter from the Government Chief Whip. That letter contained further allegations which were not in the original anonymous letter. They were new allegations of the Government Chief Whip that, in particular, I had avoided paying income tax. I would have thought that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury would know that companies do not pay income tax and that corporation tax is paid only when there are profits.
The worst allegation that the Government Chief Whip made was that I had a covert relationship with a company which was believed to be a front organisation for the Bosnian Serbs, whose leaders were wanted for war crimes by the international community. That was a disgraceful allegation. All the Government Chief Whip's allegations were dismissed by Sir Gordon, who said that I would not be too distressed by his findings. He was right, I was not.
The committee, though, without ever seeing me, went on to recommend my suspension for not ticking the "no" box. I have explained to the House why I did not. Subsequently, I asked twice to appear before the committee, but both requests were turned down. I have never been before the body that now seeks my punishment. No hon. Member should ever again be sent to the Chamber to serve penance without having had a hearing before his peers.
I feel that I must say that an attempt has been made to create a scandal out of an oversight. Allegations were invented and added to those in the anonymous letter, covered by privilege and given currency. I trust that that will never happen again.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
Order for Second Reading read.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien):
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Protecting and maintaining the security of our nation is the prime responsibility of the Government of the day. International terrorist organisations are a major security threat. It is therefore rightly a high priority for our police and Security Service to counter the activities of international terrorists and their supporters in the United Kingdom. However, at the same time, we must ensure that our procedures for dealing with such people meet acceptable standards of fairness.
The key point is that it is always comparatively straightforward and easy to accord decent civil rights treatment to decent, reasonable people. We all know that it is much more difficult to give the same treatment to those who behave in an uncivilised way. It is the mark of a law-abiding and civilised society which respects human rights that we acknowledge the need to do so and to accord everyone fair treatment under the law.
Those involved in terrorist activities are, wherever possible, dealt with by the criminal law. However, that is not always possible or practicable. Sometimes, they have not broken our criminal laws but, because they are associated with terrorism, we do not want them in our country.
In dealing with those involved in international terrorism and other activities that threaten the safety of our nation, the ability under the provisions of the Immigration Act 1971 to exclude or deport those foreign nationals who pose a significant threat is very important. The powers are used sparingly; all decisions must be taken personally by the Secretary of State. However, those powers make a contribution to protecting the United Kingdom from those who threaten our national security.
The arrangements that had been in place until very recently were the result of careful consideration by our predecessors in government, and are not the subject of party disagreement. It was agreed that final decisions in such cases should rest with the Home Secretary of the day and should not be subject to appeal in the normal appeals process. During the passage of the Immigration Bill in 1971, it was agreed that, where a person is liable to deportation on national security grounds, he should be entitled to have the case against him reviewed by a non-statutory panel, which would advise the Home Secretary before he reached a final decision. It was, however, accepted by all parties in the House that the final decision was a matter for the Home Secretary of the day.
Although the arrangements were the subject of some criticism from time to time, they remained in place for almost 25 years. They were, however, challenged before the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Chahal. Judgment in the case was delivered late last November.
That Mr. Robert N. Wareing be suspended from the service of the House for one week, with suspension of his salary for that period; and that he do withdraw from the precincts for that period.
The hon. Member accordingly withdrew.
4.53 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |