Standards and Privileges

Part of Opposition Day – in the House of Commons at 7:58 pm on 17 November 1997.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Mrs Gillian Shephard Mrs Gillian Shephard Shadow Leader of the House of Commons 7:58, 17 November 1997

I shall quote later in my speech from the Committee's report, which seems to call into question the inquisitorial process. I will therefore not answer the right hon. Gentleman's question now, but will tackle the issue later.

In paragraph 7 of the eighth report—which the Chairman has already quoted—the Committee has ruled that Neil Hamilton's conduct fellseriously and persistently below the standards which the House is entitled to expect of its Members. Had Mr. Hamilton still been a Member we would have recommended a substantial period of suspension from the service of the House. These conclusions are justified by paragraph 6 alone. The report makes it clear that Mr. Hamilton accepted that he had failed to register a number of interests—which, of course, were serious breaches of the rules of the House.

The Committee's clear statement puts an end to what has been a difficult matter for the House and a personal tragedy for Mr. Hamilton. The former Member for Tatton has endured considerable public opprobrium, and he now faces the end of his chosen career. He will not stand on the official Conservative party candidates list again.

The Committee has been able to draw a line under the affair, and both sides of the House are indebted to it for that. However, the case of Mr. Hamilton—in respect of Mr. Al Fayed's allegations against him—precisely highlights the limitations of the Committee's role.

In paragraph 3 of the eighth report, the Commissioner is quoted: This was a parliamentary inquiry and there was no attempt to replicate the procedures of a court action … The approach was inquisitorial, not adversarial. Its sole purpose was to arrive at the truth, not to achieve a `conviction'. Given the effects on Mr. Hamilton's life and future, however, he would have had more rights in calling witnesses and producing evidence to support his case against the allegations made against him by Mr. Al Fayed had it been a court action. He would also have had a right of appeal—something that he has been most specifically denied by the entire procedure.