| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Peter Hain): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Let me make it clear what I said. In recent months, the Defence Secretary has made more statements to the House and been more accountable for the war in Iraq than any Defence Secretary in similar circumstances in parliamentary history. He will appear immediately after points of order, as the Opposition know. I do not know how the Defence Secretary could be more accountable to the House.
Mr. Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Apart from the fact that the Foreign Secretary has already made a statement to television cameras and not to the House, were the Secretary of State for Defence to make a statement, it would enable hon. Members to question him properly under your guidance. However, if he decides to attempt to make a
statement in the guise of a speech in a debate, it is up to him whether he accepts interventions. That undermines one of the important processes of the House whereby we hold Ministers to account. They cannot duck a statement because it takes place under your guidance, but if they are making a speech, they can refuse interventions.
Mr. Speaker: These are the rules of the House, which the right hon. Gentleman knows. I think that he is clear about what I am saying—any hon. Member who is in order when speaking during the debate, whether the Secretary of State or a Back-Bench Member, even the newest Back Bencher, will be allowed to continue.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned interventions. It is up to individual Members' discretion to decide whether to take interventions. Although that may be a problem, provided that all hon. Members who are called are in order during the business before us, they will be able to speak. Those are the rules that the House has given me.
I do not wish to prolong the matter because hon. Members know that there is a 12-minute limit on speeches for Back-Bench Members. We are in danger of squeezing out a Back Bencher.
Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you confirm that today's debate is about homeland defence? It has been much sought because we have not held a ring-fenced debate on the subject. If we trespass into international affairs, it will be open season and we shall have another general foreign affairs and defence debate.
Mr. Speaker: It is a debate on the Adjournment, entitled "Defence in the United Kingdom". Hon. Members can read the Order Paper. It is a while since I have looked at it because I have been so busy taking points of order.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We look to you to protect not only our interests but the good processes of the House. Is it not normal practice that when a ministerial statement is anticipated—we have been led to believe that one is forthcoming from the Secretary of State for Defence—hon. Members should receive proper prior notification so that they can attend? Cannot the Secretary of State make clear now from the Dispatch Box the time when he will make a statement—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. Clearly, the Speaker has not led anyone to believe that there will be a statement. That is the important thing.
Standards and Privileges
Motion made, and Question proposed,
- That this House—
(i) approves the Fifth Report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges (House of Commons Paper No. 947); and
(ii) accordingly suspends Mr Clive Betts, Member for Sheffield Attercliffe, from the service of the House for seven days.—[Derek Twigg.]
1.18 pm
Sir George Young (North-West Hampshire): I commend the motion to approve the Committee's fifth report, which it agreed unanimously on 15 July, and the related recommendation to suspend the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) from the service of the House for seven days. I shall speak briefly.
The report, which found that the hon. Gentleman's conduct had fallen well below the expected standard, was published on 17 July. The hon. Gentleman made a personal statement to the House on that day in which he acknowledged and accepted the Committee's conclusion that he had made two errors of judgment. He had already apologised unreservedly to the Committee in respect of those matters.
Hon. Members will recognise the readiness with which the hon. Gentleman came to the House to accept the report's conclusions and to apologise for his conduct, and the terms in which he did so. His prompt statement to the House was particularly welcome as the Committee's inquiry was completed on the eve of a recess, and there was consequently no opportunity for an early debate.
The background to this case is unusual. Following the appearance in the press of a series of allegations about the circumstances in which the hon. Gentleman had employed a personal friend, Mr. José Gasparo, a Brazilian national, to work for him temporarily at the House of Commons, and the circumstances of Mr. Gasparo's return to the UK after the two of them had travelled abroad together, the hon. Gentleman wrote to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards seeking an investigation of the propriety of his actions. This is the first occasion on which a Member has sought to initiate the investigative process, rather than wait to see whether a complaint materialised. That was no soft option. The Commissioner has investigated the matter in precisely the same way as he would have investigated a complaint from a third party.
I pay tribute to the Parliamentary Commissioner for the sensitive way in which he conducted this investigation. Both he and my Committee were solely concerned with whether any aspects of the hon. Gentleman's conduct in relation to the events in question were in breach of the code. We were not concerned with matters relating to his personal life.
The Commissioner's report highlighted three areas of concern: first, whether Mr. Gasparo had the skills and experience to do the job for which he was recruited, and whether his employment represented a proper use of public funds; secondly, whether the hon. Gentleman should have taken account of any factors besides Mr. Gasparo's skills and experience before employing him; and, thirdly, the events surrounding Mr. Gasparo's re-entry into the UK following his holiday with the hon. Gentleman.
My Committee concluded that, on the evidence available, the hon. Gentleman had not contravened any rules of the House relating to the staffing allowance in employing Mr. Gasparo. We did, however, conclude that the hon. Gentleman had been unwise to employ him, given Mr. Gasparo's history of work as a male escort and that he did not have leave to remain in the UK for the full period envisaged for his employment. However, the most serious of the allegations was that the hon. Gentleman had been party, while on holiday abroad with Mr. Gasparo, to copying an altered letter of enrolment for Mr. Gasparo's proposed further course of study. That alteration had removed words which Mr. Gasparo considered might be prejudicial to his securing readmission to the UK, his previous leave to remain having expired during the course of the holiday.
While my Committee recognised the psychological pressure under which the hon. Gentleman acted, it concluded that he should not have agreed to be party to a course of action which might have led to the immigration officer being deceived as to the facts on which to decide on Mr. Gasparo's re-entry to the UK. We concluded that, in doing so, the hon. Gentleman's conduct fell well below the standard expected in terms of maintaining and strengthening the public's trust and confidence in the integrity of Parliament.
Having been furnished with a full copy of the report, the hon. Gentleman made a written submission to the Committee, to which we gave careful consideration. We welcomed his recognition of the fairness of the Commissioner's report, and his willingness to apologise, should the Committee agree that he had made the errors of judgment identified by the Commissioner in his report. We none the less took the view that Mr. Gasparo's intentions were clear in relation to why he wanted an altered copy of the letter of enrolment for his proposed new course, and that the hon. Gentleman should not have been party to them, given the risk of immigration offences being committed as a result.
This was, in many respects, a difficult case. The Committee none the less reached a unanimous conclusion. I commend our report to the House.
1.23 pm
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): I would simply like to say that, every time we have one of these cases before us, it highlights the difficulty and sensitivity that often arises. It also puts us to the test in terms of our ability to regulate ourselves. I believe that, on this
occasion as on all others, our Committee has performed its task and considered the matter properly, and come to what is always in these cases a rather painful conclusion. I certainly support the Committee and would want my colleagues to do so as well. I do so in the knowledge that this is yet another example of how we are capable of regulating ourselves, and are prepared to do so. I hope that it will reassure those outside that we are doing so, and that we are constantly capable of doing so.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |