A VETERAN MP has called for an investigation into revelations John Major's Government used claims of nepotism and religious bias against a council as political ammunition, despite knowing they were baseless.
Tom Clarke, Labour MP for Coatbridge and Chryston, said he may ask a House of Commons committee to investigate after The Herald reported on the Monklands District Council affair.
Previously secret Scotland Office files showed the then Tory Scottish Secretary was advised not to hold a public inquiry into the council, as there was no evidence of wrongdoing and "very little prospect" of it achieving anything.
However, Ian Lang set one up regardless – at a cost of £106,000 – and Mr Major continued to use the Monklands affair to bait Labour over sleaze in the House of Commons.
Mr Clarke, a former Monklands District provost, who was Monklands West MP during the affair, said an investigation was required.
He said: "In the circumstances, I am considering asking the House of Commons Standards and Privileges Committee to look into this matter."
The Monklands scandal erupted in the early 1990s.
The Labour-run council, which later became North Lanarkshire Council, was accused of cronyism in hiring staff and letting contracts, and of skewing public funds towards largely Catholic Coatbridge at the expense of Airdrie, with a larger Protestant population. The council commissioned Professor Robert Black, QC, to report on the claims, expecting to be cleared.
Mr Black's 1995 report concluded many of the allegations had merit, and there was indeed a spending bias in favour of Coatbridge.
However, when Mr Lang asked his officials about holding an inquiry, they told him the Black report was flawed and lacked prima facie evidence.
"Our recommendation is against the holding of [an] inquiry," they told him in a five-page memo.
Going against their advice, Mr Lang set up a lengthy inquiry under William Nimmo-Smith, QC, later the judge Lord Nimmo-Smith, who reached the same conclusion as the officials.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article