§ 54. Mr. McGOVERNasked the Lord Advocate what action he proposes to take in regard to the representations which have been made to him to set up a, judicial inquiry into the allegations of corrupt practices by members of the city council of Glasgow?
§ The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Craigie Aitchison)I have considered these representations, but have been unable to discover any ground on which I could advise that steps should be taken to have a tribunal of inquiry set up under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921.
§ Mr. McGOVERNIf I am able to place additional and important evidence of corrupt practices by members of the Glasgow City Council, in addition to the already conclusive evidence submitted by me and others, will the Lord Advocate undertake to tear himself away from the political influences which are operating, and set up a tribunal?
§ The LORD ADVOCATEThe insinuation in the hon. Member's supplementary question does not call for a reply, but may I say that the allegations which have been made hitherto have been of the vaguest and most nebulous kind. I have had them very fully and carefully inquired into by my Department, and they were found to be without a scintilla of evidence. The people who have been most vocal in agitating in this matter have declined to submit any evidence whatever to the Procurator-Fiscal, who is the proper official to investigate the matter. Let me just add that if the hon. Member has any evidence in his possession, I hope he will deem it to be 1960 consistent with his duty to submit it forthwith to the Procurator-Fiscal, who, in due course, will report to me upon it.
§ Mr. McGOVERNAs the Lord Advocate has not given any undertaking to consider——
§ Mr. SPEAKERI did not rise to call the hon. Member to order when putting his supplementary question because I thought it was a maiden effort on his part, but I cannot allow him to proceed in that way.
§ Mr. MAXTONArising out of the Lord Advocate's answer, is it the view that a Member of this House has no interest in clean government, and no right to put views before the House, but must proceed, as a member of the public, through the ordinary police channels?
§ The LORD ADVOCATEI do not in any way object to considering representations that are made, but they must be specific. The hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand that before you can set up a tribunal under the Act of 1921 there must be a definite matter to be inquired into. Hitherto there has been no definite matter except in one respect where an inquiry was held, and there the specific allegation was shown to be absolutely without foundation.
§ Mr. MAXTONWould the Lord Advocate be prepared to receive the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) and myself to put the position before him again?
§ The LORD ADVOCATECertainly, but I think it would be much more satisfactory if the hon. Member reduced the allegations to writing and signed them.
§ Mr. McGOVERNIn view of the unsatisfactory reply, I give notice that I intend to raise this matter at the earliest opportunity on the Motion for the Adjournment.