| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
3.52 pm
Mr. Alan Williams (Swansea, West): The House will well understand the reason why the Chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), cannot be here today. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) for her good wishes. I know that the good wishes of the whole House are with him for a speedy recovery. No one wishes more than I that he were here today, because he understands better than anyone--he has had to do it more often, sadly, from his point of view--how unpleasant it is to move to suspend a longstanding parliamentary colleague. It is not a pleasant experience. I suspect that I regret nearly as much as the hon. Lady the fact that we are in this situation.
I apologise to the House that I am going keep, as the hon. Lady did, rather closely to my remit and to my brief because of the complexity and the personal sensitivities of some of the issues involved.
I am here to ask the House to approve the fifth report of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges on complaints against the hon. Lady, and its recommendation to suspend her for one month. That is the longest period of suspension that the Committee has ever recommended in its five years of existence. The sadness is that, as the report says, many of the complaints against the hon. Lady
The Committee upheld three complaints about registration and declaration of interests. The first is that the hon. Lady failed to register her interest in various properties in south London, which she owned jointly--it is not a point that she brought out in her comments--with her husband and which were let to tenants for rent between 1987 and 1994. Secondly, she failed to declare that interest when she introduced two ten-minute Bills about rented property. Thirdly, she failed to register her interest in an offshore trust. Several other complaints were made about properties in Portugal and Germany, but the Committee has dismissed those complaints.
The hon. Lady's failure to register would inevitably be a source of criticism in its own right. However, the Committee felt that the other complaints against her were far more serious. We upheld four further complaints. The first was that she provided seriously misleading and inaccurate information to the Registrar of Members' Interests, the Parliamentary Commissioner, the Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee and the Committee itself. Secondly, she made false allegations against a member of the public. Thirdly, she improperly contacted a witness during the investigation. Finally, she failed to uphold the code of conduct for Members by not observing the principles--
Mr. Gerald Howarth (Aldershot):
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Williams:
No, I am sorry, but I will not.
Mr. Howarth:
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Williams:
I have said no. This matter is too serious for the playing of games.
Mr. Howarth:
In that case, will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Williams:
Let the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) carry on his Hamilton vendetta somewhere else.
Mr. Howarth:
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman has outrageously accused me of waging some kind of vendetta when I had sought only to obtain information. Can the right hon. Gentleman's words be accounted parliamentary?
Madam Speaker:
Order. I think that tempers must cool. I quite understand why the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) wishes to put the Committee's case before the House. If the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) seeks to catch my eye during the course of the debate, I will try to call him.
Mr. Williams:
The hon. Member for Aldershot may want information, and I intend to give information. That is why I intend to stick closely to my brief.
The hon. Member for Billericay failed to uphold the code of conduct for Members by not observing its principles of honesty and accountability--principles at the centre of our debate. The Committee considered that her behaviour was a breach of the code of conduct and a contempt of the House. It is for that reason that the Committee recommended such a severe penalty.
Let me turn to the south London properties to which the hon. Lady referred. She implied that those properties belonged entirely to her husband. As long ago as 1995, allegations were made that the hon. Lady had owned properties in south London that were let to tenants for rent when she had sought, in 1990, to introduce a Bill to repeal the Rent Acts. There were further allegations that the properties had been sold to offshore companies with which she was connected.
The hon. Lady denied those allegations in the most unequivocal terms. In a letter to the Registrar of Member's Interests on 23 May 1995, she wrote:
Despite the allegations made against her in 1995, which led to lawyers being instructed, and despite the matters being raised again by the commissioner and the Committee in April 1999, it was not until June 1999 that the hon. Lady told the commissioner that each of the south London properties had, contrary to her previous assertions, been let to tenants until sold.
There were originally thought to be only two properties. It was not until the commissioner discovered that a third had been owned by the hon. Lady and her husband that
she revealed her connection with it. Only when she discovered that the commissioner was preparing to contact previous tenants of the south London property did she admit the existence of those tenants.
One of the papers in the case is a sworn statement from a man who said that he had rented a bedsit in one of the houses. The hon. Lady told the commissioner that neither she nor her husband owned property in which the man was ever a tenant, and that his sworn statement was false. She went further, and told the Committee that the statement had been
When the south London properties were sold, they were bought by offshore companies, and two flats in Portugal, used by the hon. Lady and her husband as holiday accommodation, were also owned by offshore companies; but all those companies were owned by the Queenstown Trust, itself an offshore discretionary trust, which was established in 1986 on the instructions of the hon. Lady and her husband. There was a network of offshore companies--although she denied any contact or connection with such companies--involved with the properties.
The hon. Lady was deemed to be the settlor of the trust. I had never come across that term before, but we have been assured that the settlor is the person who sets up the trust and provides it with assets. She asked the trustees to regard her husband as the prime beneficiary of the trust but that, should he die before her, she herself was to be regarded as the prime beneficiary. Again, that hardly fits the picture of someone with no connection with offshore companies.
Sadly, the Committee did not get any of that information from the hon. Lady herself. Eventually, we got it last November from the management of the offshore company, who insisted that we apply for it in writing. In April last year, she told the commissioner that she had never had any connection with the offshore companies that bought her properties, and as late as last July she wrote to the commissioner:
The Committee expressed the opinion in our report that the hon. Lady's denials of any connection with offshore companies were intended to deceive. Again, the House must make its mind up whether we were right. She claimed in her evidence in January this year that she had no registrable or legal connection with offshore companies. That was not what she was asked about. She was asked about a completely different point. The commissioner and the Committee had asked whether, as alleged, she had any connection with offshore companies.
We were hoping for--it could have foreshortened the whole situation--a straightforward and honest answer. If the hon. Lady had been straightforward and open with the
commissioner and the Committee, she would have explained at the outset the nature of her connection with the Queenstown Trust and its connection with the other offshore companies, and not sought to conceal those connections as she did. I should like to draw the attention of the House to paragraph 40 of the report. Its effect on all Members of Parliament is intended to be cautionary. It states:
I am sorry to go on at length, but I was asked for information and I believe that the hon. Lady deserves to have the case spelled out in full. I hope that the House will allow me to continue and to consider the claims that the hon. Lady is reported to have made. She has claimed that the investigation went unnecessarily into her personal life. We did not want to investigate matters relating to her personal life. Members of the Committee recognise, as would any Member of Parliament, that Members have the same right as anyone else to privacy in their personal life and that that privacy should be protected wherever possible. We, as a Committee, would never want to intrude unnecessarily on any hon. Member's personal affairs.
Our problem however was that the hon. Lady's evidence to the Committee was founded on the proposition that, between 1986 and 1994, she and her husband were separated and she had no knowledge of and no involvement in his business activities. Her entire argument for non-registration rests on the personal and previously unpublicised agreement between herself and her husband. Her claim is that, according to a draft agreement dated 1986, she had no beneficial interest in the south London properties because, she claimed, although she remained the legal joint owner of the properties--the crucial admission--her husband was granted complete control over their use and disposal.
The commissioner and the Committee felt that that separation agreement made no difference. The hon. Lady admits that she continued to be the joint owner of the properties and the land registry entry still listed her as such. Furthermore, the Committee seriously doubted that the agreement had ever been put into practice. No formal deed of separation was ever executed; there was only a
draft. During the alleged separation, the flat in Portugal was acquired as a second home for the hon. Lady and her husband. The hon. Lady set up two companies with her husband as joint shareholder; he had only one share, but that is a normal arrangement. Throughout that time, the hon. Lady's husband was on the electoral register and on the community charge register for her Westminster home. The house in the hon. Lady's constituency, which she purchased in 1993, was registered in the joint names of the hon. Lady and her husband.
Perhaps one of the most convincing points, and the final one, was that the tax liability on the sale of one of the south London properties would, if what she has claimed was correct, have been met by her husband, but, in fact, the tax liability was met by one of the hon. Lady's companies.
Therefore, for the Committee--the hon. Lady may say that we have it wrong--the evidence was overwhelming. It took the view that, if the hon. Lady owned the properties, they should have been registered. After all, the main purpose of the Register of Members' Interests is
As the Committee stated in its report,
The hon. Lady has claimed--she has repeated it today--that fresh allegations were raised during the course of the investigation which were not in the commissioner's original memorandum. Hon. Members are too busy to read everything in detail and the document is voluminous, but anyone who has read it will have noted that the Committee's conclusions mirror completely the commissioner's memorandum and do not raise any fresh allegations against the hon. Lady. I shall come in a moment to her knowledge and the nature of the allegations.
The hon. Lady has also said that she wants to appeal against our finding. It is important to emphasise that it is not the facts in the case that are in dispute--the facts, sadly, are clear--but the conclusions to be drawn from them and the propriety of the hon. Lady's behaviour in the course of the inquiry. It is beyond dispute that she remained joint legal owner of the three properties until they were eventually sold. It is beyond dispute that she is connected with the trust in the way described in the
Committee's report and as I have outlined. It is for the House to judge whether the hon. Lady has broken our rules, as the Committee believes that she has.
All the evidence that has been relied on in constructing the report has come from, or been confirmed by, the hon. Lady, her advisers or her business associates. We have therefore done everything we can to ensure that she has been treated fairly. However, and this is the most serious allegation, the hon. Lady questioned the fairness and impartiality of the commissioner and the Committee. Other Committee members who are not Labour Members may wish to say whether they think that she was dealt with fairly.
The hon. Lady made play of the recent report of the Neill committee, which makes proposals for the handling of disciplinary cases in the House. Obviously, the Standards and Privileges Committee and the House will have to study those proposals. Importantly, the report states that appeals should be allowed in serious cases--I regard this as such a case--in which facts are in dispute. I do not regard this as a case in which the facts are in dispute, other than by the hon. Lady. Anyone who reads the evidence is forced, however reluctantly, to that inexorable conclusion.
The fact remains that the Standards and Privileges Committee is a creature of this House: it set us up, gave us our remit and laid down the rules by which we have to decide. We can only work by the rules that are in force. Far from being as frivolously arrived at as the hon. Lady tried to suggest, the Committee is only five years old because it was set up in the light of the Nolan committee's recommendation. We have amended--we may not yet have got it right and I am open to discussion about that, as I think that we all are and have to be--but none the less we have done our best to meet what Nolan requested of the House.
The Standards and Privileges Committee has always been acutely aware of the need not only to be fair to the hon. Lady but to be seen to be fair. We bent over backwards in our attempts to do so. Uniquely, we provided the hon. Lady with a copy of the commissioner's memorandum, which is not our usual practice--I am sure that she will acknowledge that we did so--so that she could be fully aware not only of the evidence that the commissioner had received, but of the conclusions that the commissioner had arrived at and was putting before the Committee for it to discuss with her. We also wanted the hon. Lady to appreciate the seriousness of her position.
I hate to say this, but there were times when we doubted that the hon. Lady fully realised how serious her position was. We suggested that, in her own interests, she should take proper advice about how she should proceed. Indeed, when it came to taking oral evidence from her, although we started to consider the allegations made against her, and to her, in June, we agreed to her request to adjourn the hearing until mid-January to give her the time that she wanted to retrieve documents, take legal advice and prepare her arguments.
In January, the Committee received substantial written submissions from the hon. Lady and took oral evidence, which lasted most of a morning and the major part of an afternoon. Throughout those hearings, she was
accompanied by a solicitor, who was allowed to advise her. She and her solicitor subsequently had ample opportunity to correct the transcript of the minutes of the hearing and to clarify and comment on the evidence given, which they did at length. The Committee considered those corrections and comments at length.
As far as impartiality is concerned, I can only reiterate that the report before the House is unanimous. It was agreed after careful consideration by every member of the Committee, including two hon. Members from the same party as the hon. Lady. Perhaps it is not fair to single them out in that way, but I do so to reassure her colleagues. The independence of mind of those two hon. Members is well understood and respected throughout the House. Of course, I think that everyone would agree that the Chairman of the Committee is one of the most respected and fair minded people--there are not many of them--in the House.
Members of this House have a duty of accountability, under the code of conduct, to
We believe that the House can uphold its standards only by imposing a substantial period of suspension on the hon. Lady. I ask the House to note that, as stated at paragraph 50 of our report--which also was unanimously agreed--the suspension would have been "considerably longer" were it not for the fact that we recognised the embarrassment and distress that inevitably would be caused to the hon. Lady by the publication of "sensitive personal information".
I ask the House to support the Committee and approve our report.
could have been dealt with swiftly, and without the need for extensive inquiry, if she had co-operated properly.
I should remind the House of the findings of the commissioner and of the Committee and explain why the Committee decided unanimously--I must emphasise that--that such a serious penalty was justified.
It is not true either of the two properties were let to tenants in 1990/91 . . .
Four years later, in April 1999, the hon. Lady told the commissioner that there were no paying tenants in either house while she was the owner. Subsequent events have shown all those statements to be untrue.
It is not true that I have any connection with an offshore company as alleged.
falsified for a cash payment.
That is a serious allegation; it is even more serious when a Member of Parliament makes it under the protection of parliamentary privilege, as the hon. Lady did. Later she had to admit that there was nothing in the statement that she knew to be false. She could produce no evidence of any cash payment. We concluded--the House must decide whether we were right--that her unfounded allegations were intended to mislead.
I confirm that my husband and I have no connection with off-shore companies.
I will not comment on that: it speaks for itself. The statement was simply untrue in relation to her husband and disingenuous at best in relation to herself.
Members should not seek to mislead by keeping information from the Commissioner on the ground that they do not themselves consider the interest to which it relates to be registrable. Many of the complaints against Mrs. Gorman could have been dealt with swiftly, and without the need for extensive inquiry, if she had co-operated properly. Mrs. Gorman should have been open and helpful in her dealings with the Commissioner at the time when the complaints against her were first made, especially where a number of these complaints rested on understandable assumptions about Mrs. Gorman's personal circumstances.
It is a sad feature of the inquiry that, with the possible exception of today, the hon. Lady has throughout been quick to assign blame to almost anyone but herself for the situation that has arisen. According to press reports, our Parliamentary Commissioner has been accused of bias. The Committee has been accused of
behaving like the Spanish Inquisition,
and, even more devastating, of being
a tool of the Labour Party spin-doctor industry.
I look at the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell), the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) and I wonder whether the hon. Lady sees the same Committee that I see.
to provide information of any pecuniary interest or other material benefit which a Member receives which might reasonably be thought by others to influence his or her actions, speeches or votes in Parliament, or actions taken in his or her capacity as a Member of Parliament.
Given that the hon. Lady's arguments for non-registration rested on the document and the alleged separation of assets, the Committee could not in all conscience--I invite hon. Members who have not had a chance to read the evidence to do so--have omitted the evidence, however unhappy it was about disclosing elements of the hon. Lady's personal life. It was a defence that she used; it was a defence that either had to be accepted, or certainly had to be explored, and possibly had to be rebutted. In our case, we did not accept it.
The evidence about their separation is crucial to Mrs. Gorman's explanation for her actions, in particular her failure to register certain interests. Its omission would be misleading and would undermine the basis of this Report.
That evidence--I re-emphasise this--need never have been published if the hon. Lady had sought advice in the first place, and if she had registered the property as early as she could after she discovered that she had an interest.
submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office.
We have a duty of honesty to provide full and accurate information to the Parliamentary Commissioner and to the Committee. Sadly, the hon. Lady has fallen short of the standards that the House is entitled to expect. The way in which she responded to the complaint against her was both a breach of the code of conduct and a contempt of the House.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |