| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
27 Feb 2003 : Column 421—continued
Mr. Cook: For the record, the Government introduced and are implementing the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Conservative Government refused to introduce such a measure.
Mr. Iain Luke (Dundee, East): My right hon. Friend may not know about the unhappiness of hon. Members of all parties about the restrictions on the debate about the Scottish economy in the previous Scottish Grand Committee meeting, which was held on 18 February. The debate was restricted because of an inability to award extra time and the Divisions in the House. As Chair of the Modernisation Committee, will my right hon. Friend undertake to place on the agenda of its next meeting in the next two weeks a review of the workings of the Scottish Grand Committee and other Grand Committees to make them more relevant to the work of the House? Perhaps we could have a system along the lines of the cross-border institutions in Ireland, whereby Members of Parliament, Ministers, MSPs and Assembly Members could come together to discuss issues that straddle the devolved divide.
Mr. Cook: I am aware from the comments of members of the Scottish Grand Committee of the frustration caused by the loss of time through Divisions in the House. We can deal with that through Standing Orders, and with the power of the Chair to extend the length of Scottish Grand Committee's sittings to compensate for time lost in Divisions. I am willing to do that without necessarily going through the Modernisation Committee.
My hon. Friend raised a large question when he suggested full meetings in Committee of Members of this places and Members of other places such as the Scottish Parliament. I do not necessarily oppose such a proposal but not every Member for a Scottish constituency would wholeheartedly endorse it. I would want to know that there was consensus before proceeding further.
David Burnside (South Antrim): The Government have been constructive in presenting to the House information and intelligence to allow hon. Members to evaluate the threat that Saddam Hussein poses to world peace. The police and our intelligence services provide that information.
In the next seven to 14 days, the leadership of the Ulster Unionist party must decide whether to go back into an Executive with Sinn Fein. Will the Leader of the House ask the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State of Northern Ireland to give the House an evaluation of Colombia, Castlereagh, Stormontgate and the threat posed by republican terrorists? We cannot make a judgment without that intelligence information.
Mr. Cook: Any process that the Government undertake to restore momentum to the peace process
must take account of our knowledge of the activities of those who are party to it. That is important, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are clear that if the peace process is to progress we need a definite commitment to acts of completion by paramilitary organisations on both sides. I am not sure whether it would be sensible to disclose in public intelligence information that may not be relevant to future criminal activities.
Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West): May we have a statement next week on the administrative difficulties that may arise if the Budget is not presented next month or, as matters currently appear, it disappears completely?
Mr. Cook: I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no risk of the Budget disappearing. The Government would never miss giving the House an opportunity to celebrate the fact that we have lower unemployment and lower inflation than ever existed under the Conservative Government, and a sounder economy and lower interest rates than they achieved.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham): Again, the business statement did not mention the mental health Bill, which is eagerly anticipated by Conservative Members and the individuals and organisations throughout the country that provided more than 2,000 consultation responses to the draft measure. When can we expect the Bill? Will the final measure remove the obnoxious coercion provisions in the draft Bill? If the Bill will not be introduced soon, will the Leader of the House allow time for a debate on mental health? In the past, we have given time in Supply days to debate the state of mental health provision or its lack in many parts of the country. There are gaps in adolescent mental health provision and increasing waiting times for services.
Mr. Cook: Work on the mental health Bill continues carefully and with due process precisely because of the large volume of responses to the consultation process. As hon. Members know, I strongly argued that we should consult on draft legislation, try to find ways in which the public can comment on it and enter into debate with the most interested lobby and professional groups. That happened with the mental health Bill. It is right and proper to ensure adequate time to reflect on the responses and, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, try to accommodate them in a future text.
Hugh Robertson (Faversham and Mid-Kent): In a recent written answer, the Ministry of Defence disclosed that up to 10,400 of our service men and women who are currently deploying to the Gulf face cuts in their local overseas allowance of between 20 per cent. and 35 per cent. Early-day motion 779 deals with the matter.
[That this House recognises that 10,400 members of the armed forces deployed to the Gulf are in receipt of local overseas allowance; deplores the Ministry of Defence's decision to remove 20 per cent. of that allowance for single and married unaccompanied personnel after the first 17 days of any deployment and 35 per cent. of that allowance for married accompanied personnel if their spouse leaves their permanent duty
station for more than 17 days; and urges the Ministry of Defence to ensure that no member of the armed forces loses out financially through service in the Gulf.]Will the Leader of the House ensure that the Secretary of State for Defence makes an urgent statement in the House on the entire welfare package? That will be of interest to hon. Members of all parties. Does he agree that no member of our armed forces should lose out financially through service in the Gulf?
Mr. Cook: My hon. and right hon. Friends who are Defence Ministers are fully aware of the importance of maintaining morale and motivation in the forces. Welfare is an important part of that and my ministerial colleagues will give careful consideration to ensuring that the welfare of all members of the armed forces and their families is fully taken care of.
John Barrett (Edinburgh, West): When the Leader of the House considers the request for an early debate on the future of our pharmacies, which the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) mentioned earlier, will he bear it in mind that the Government gave a commitment to respond within 90 days of the publication of the Office of Fair Trading report and that we are already 40 days into that period?
Mr. Cook: Certainly, I will do so, but according to the hon. Gentleman's arithmetic, there are almost 50 days to go. I have no reason to believe that the Government will not meet the deadline.
Standards and Privileges
Motion made, and Question proposed,
- That this House—
(i) approves the Third Report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges (House of Commons Paper No. 435); and
(ii) accordingly suspends Mr Michael Trend, Member for Windsor, from the service of the House for two weeks.—[Mr. Heppell.]
1.38 pm
Sir George Young (North-West Hampshire): I commend to the House the motion to approve the Committee's third report, which was agreed unanimously on 12 February, and the related recommendation to suspend my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend) from the service of the House for two weeks.
On 13 February, when the report was published, my hon. Friend made a personal statement in which he accepted unreservedly the report's conclusions that he had been muddled and naive in his negligent understanding of the additional costs allowance. He apologised unreservedly to Mr. Speaker and to his constituents. Hon. Members will acknowledge the speed with which my hon. Friend came to the House to accept the report's conclusions and to apologise for his conduct, and the terms in which he did that.
The background to this case was a report in The Mail on Sunday on 15 December that my hon. Friend had returned to his house in Windsor while claiming an allowance intended to cover the cost of overnight stays in London. His reaction to the allegations was that they were wrong, and he immediately contacted the Department of Finance and Administration to confirm that his understanding was correct. While his discussions with the department did indeed confirm that he had never claimed additional costs allowance in respect of his London address, they revealed that he had seriously misunderstood the significance of identifying his main residence for this purpose.
Although my hon. Friend believed that his conduct had always been perfectly proper, he accepted that he had misunderstood the rules, and agreed to repay, without delay, the sum that he was told was due. That was done, in full, on 23 December.
The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards subsequently received several complaints, one of which, from a constituent, formed the basis of the commissioner's investigation.
This is the first case investigated by the present commissioner to come before the House, though not before my Committee. I pay tribute to the care and thoroughness, exemplified by this case, with which he carries out his investigations, and to the clarity of his report, published as an appendix to ours.
The commissioner concluded that my hon. Friend had claimed additional costs allowance in breach of the rules. He did not, however, find that the evidence available was sufficient to substantiate the conclusion that my hon. Friend had deliberately set out to abuse the allowance. He concluded that the evidence was certainly sufficient to justify the view that my hon. Friend was, at the least, careless or negligent in relation to the claims that he made. He also considered that it was clear that,
in failing to observe the relevant rules, he had misused the allowance and consequently breached the code of conduct.The Committee agreed that my hon. Friend was not dishonest in his belief that he had the option to choose which of his places of residence to register as his main residence for the purpose of the additional costs allowance. We recognised, as did the commissioner, that since the matter came to light my hon. Friend had co-operated fully with all the inquiries and promptly repaid the sum he was told he owed the Department. However, my hon. Friend should have recognised that his claiming additional costs allowance in relation to his Windsor home meant that the taxpayer was meeting some of the core running costs of what was in reality his main residence. He should have realised that it was wrong to sign a certificate giving the home of his friend in London as his main residence, when he was staying there infrequently. Accordingly, the Committee agreed with the commissioner that my hon. Friend was negligent, and had breached the code of conduct by making improper use of the additional costs allowance and failing strictly to observe the rules relating to the allowance.
The Committee considered very carefully what would be an appropriate penalty to recommend to the House. The consequences for my hon. Friend of what he conceded in his evidence to us was
- "a mistake, a serious mistake",
The code of conduct requires Members to observe the highest standards in relation to payments or allowances made to them for public purposes, and Members are personally responsible for both the accuracy and the validity of their claims. Having weighed all these considerations, we recommended that my hon. Friend be suspended from the service of the House for two weeks.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |