| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
5.23 pm
Mr. Ernie Ross (Dundee, West): As a former member of the Committee who then suffered its penalties, I have experience of both ends of its work. When I was on the Committee, a series of hon. Members came before us. If we have a debate about whether we should change our procedures, I certainly hope to be here to defend the Standards and Privileges Committee, which is the most appropriate method whereby we can discipline ourselves and Members of Parliament can be held to account by their peers.
I do not want to invite the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) to enter the debate, but I remind hon. Members of the way in which he demonstrated to a Member of Parliament who came before the Committee that had he taken the option of being truthful in the first instance, the outcome would have been much easier both on him and on the Committee. His attempted refusal to accept the facts made the process far more difficult for him. My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) said that had the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) been up-front, honest and more helpful to the Committee, the punishment it proposed might not have been so severe.
Mr. Gerald Howarth (Aldershot):
The matter is a serious one. I rise to speak in this debate because I wish to follow the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir P. Tapsell) and others who have suggested that it is the draconian nature of the penalty that most exercises us. My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) is right to draw the House's attention to the way in which today's debate and the decision of the Standards and Privileges Committee will be represented outside the House.
We stand in grave danger of trading complaints against each other and placing them before the Committee for partisan purposes. The only beneficiaries of such a process will be the media, to which we provide wonderful copy, and those who want to denigrate our Parliament. All Members of Parliament recognise that there is little corruption here and that the vast majority of Members--probably all--work extremely hard in the interests of their constituents. We would be hard pressed to name one Member of Parliament on either side of the House who we believe represents an interest that is outside his or her political philosophy for the sake of personal gain. By repeatedly dragging out these cases, we supply the media with sticks to bash us with.
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North):
Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the reputation of the House was harmed during the previous Parliament? Does he not realise that the Parliamentary Commissioner and the new Committee arose from the scandals of those days? If he is concerned about the reputation of the House--I have no reason to believe that he is not--does he not agree that it is essential to have standards? If we do not set standards or create the means of inquiring into complaints--in the current case, serious complaints--we might as well give up.
Mr. Howarth:
I could not possibly dissent from the view that we must uphold standards in Parliament. My point is that I believe that our standards are rather good. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman made a partisan point. It was a feature of the general election--as the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), now Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, admits, it was a part of the Labour party's campaign--that the Conservative party was portrayed as sleaze-ridden. The fact is that, since the election, relatively seriously charges have been preferred against Labour Members.
The hon. Gentleman makes my very point. We are neither advantaging ourselves nor doing justice to the institution which most of us hold in great affection by continually trying to score these points off one another. As I say, the only beneficiaries thereof are the media.
One of my complaints against Sir Gordon Downey was that he felt it necessary that people should be able to come to his door to make all sorts of complaints about right
hon. and hon. Members. There is a lot of mileage for journalists in doing so because it provides useful copy. The letters "MP" are useful in making short headlines. MP does this, or MP is up to that--it makes wonderful copy and further feeds the public perception that we are not honourable people.
I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) made a rather unworthy comment at the outset of the proceedings when I sought to intervene on him, and I hope that he will accept that.
Mr. Howarth:
I shall do the right hon. Gentleman the courtesy of giving way--a courtesy that he did not accord me--but in a moment.
Hon. Members should know that the right hon. Gentleman reserves his venom for me to the Chamber. He is the absolute picture of courtesy outside. We have a fine relationship outside and I do not know what drives him to be so venomous towards me in the Chamber. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes me to give way, I shall do so.
Mr. Williams:
I was about to extend the courtesy to the Chamber and say that if what I said upsets the hon. Gentleman so much, of course I withdraw it.
Mr. Howarth:
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for so doing. I am sure that it helps. But the point that I wanted to ask him was this. He referred to the fact that one of the charges levelled against my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) was that she had sought to interfere--that was the word used in the report--with a former tenant of a property. Yet the report refers to Fran Abrams, who I understand is the journalist from The Independent who lodged one of the initial complaints. She apparently wrote to the commissioner, Ms Filkin, on 28 June and 5 July. On page xxv the report states:
Reference has been made to the rules of the House. There is growing acceptance across the Floor of the House that the matter has grown out of all proportion. Our rules have already been quoted, but I wish to do so again because it is important that the public understand them. The main purpose of the register is
We need to return to the basic question of the purpose of the register.
Mr. Campbell-Savours:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
In connection with another matter, I had cause to go through some of the speeches of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. I will name no names because that would serve no purpose but I found that many hon. Members who had properly declared an interest in the register--whether they were sponsored by a trade union, working for a company or whatever--regularly participated in associated debates, particularly 10 years ago. Their interest was probably known, but it may not have been.
I could score petty party political points by naming one or two Ministers and saying that on such and such a date in 1988 they participated in a debate but did not declare their interest. I am not interested in doing so, because I do not believe that those right hon. and hon. Members who are now Ministers in this Labour Government participated in those debates 10 or 15 years ago because they were paid to do so. The fact that they were sponsored by a trade union or whatever was incidental.
The idea that my hon. Friend was influenced by her ownership of a property in Portugal to participate in affairs to do with that country in this House is monstrous. We do ourselves a disservice if we try to pretend to people outside that my hon. Friend had such a serious interest in some property in Portugal, or even two properties, that it influenced the way in which she behaved in the House. We would be telling the public that this place is behaving in a way that none of us intended.
Does the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) still wish to intervene?
The Independent have contacted 6 former tenants--
not one but six--
who were living at this property in 1990 and paying rent to Mr. Gorman.
If the Committee had genuinely wanted to be fair, it should not only have said that the hon. Lady should not have interfered with the witnesses, it should also have referred to journalists. It is all right for journalists to dig around and find dirt on Members, but it is not in order for Members to warn people that journalists are snooping around trying to make a story. That was why I sought to intervene on the right hon. Gentleman and for no other reason.
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.
Essentially, the accusation made against my hon. Friend is that she moved a 10-minute Bill when she was in receipt of rents from properties which she had not
declared. Whether she or her husband was a beneficial owner of those properties is immaterial. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) made clear, my hon. Friend is known to have been a libertarian and a deregulator, so what she was proposing was entirely consistent with her political philosophy. What the House and the public want to know is when a Member is advancing a cause not because it is one in which they strongly believe and which is part of their political philosophy, but for another reason, namely, that there is some personal advantage to them. I honestly do not believe that many hon. Members could claim to be as politically consistent--indeed, as ideologically consistent--as my hon. Friend. Therefore, it is unfair of the Committee to have taken to heart so seriously and self-righteously the fact that my hon. Friend moved her 10-minute Bill--although I accept that if one has an interest to declare, one should do so.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |