The Westminster Scandal: Interim report worries peers: House of Lords
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.(First Edition)
LORD HAILSHAM, a former Lord Chancellor and a senior Conservative, last night questioned the publication of the district auditor's provisional findings.
He demanded, in exchanges on a government statement to the Lords: 'What would one think of a judge who, halfway through a case, said he was minded to find the accused guilty but that the accused would have the opportunity of making his defence?
'Grave charges ought not to be made unless the person accused has the right to rebut.
'I understand that the right of the accused in the present case to rebut the charges has yet to be made. I am deeply concerned at what has happened.'
Lord Gilmour of Craigmillar, a former Conservative minister, wanted to know whether the procedure was 'usual or unusual'.
Lord Elton, another former Conservative minister, suggested the case should be treated assub judice.
Lord Campbell of Alloway, a Conservative, said that, from information published, 'there doesn't appear, so far as I can see, to be any evidence as to those very serious charges or of misappropriation of funds'.
The Earl of Onslow, another Conservative, suggested Britain was taking the matter 'miles more seriously than any other country in Europe' would have done.
He claimed: 'France is corrupt up to its eyeballs and the Italians and Spaniards are the same.'
However, the Earl of Arran, Under-Secretary of State at the Department of the Environment, defended the district auditor's actions and added that technically the provisional report was not sub judice.
He also said it would be 'extremely unwise' for Westminster to continue its policy of designated sales while the matter was still under investigation.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments