House of Commons Hansard Debates for 13 Jan 1994

Mr. Gummer : My hon. Friend will allow me to excuse myself from answering the first part of his question and come to the points about the changes which he might like. Those are precisely the issues which I would have thought proper to consider with great care when the due process is complete. It is obviously true that anybody looking at the matter would want to consider speed and the ability to audit effectively, and also the way in which such procedures could be made more relevant. Those are precisely the issues which I will examine at a point when those issues would not prejudice the present process.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish) : Does the Secretary of State accept that the circumstances in Tameside council and the running of its homes are totally unsatisfactory? However, the trustees of the care trust--of which I am a member, as declared in the Register of Members' Interests--and the council asked for independent financial advice as soon as they were aware of any

Column 356

irregularities. When that independent financial advice did point to irregularities, they then asked the district auditor to carry out a full investigation. The district auditor carried out that investigation and his report was published.

Following the publication of that report, the council also published a report since additional information was needed. Therefore, it made every endeavour to get the whole issue into the public domain. Following that, steps were taken by the directors to take disciplinary action. While the whole situation is unsatisfactory, the attempts to clear it up were done with complete openness. I hope that there will be now the opportunity for those homes to be run efficiently.

Mr. Gummer : I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman had the opportunity to make those points. I am sure that he would expect that all those who are involved would have the opportunity to put their case, and to do so without prejudice. I believe that that ought to happen whenever such a situation occurs. That is why I make no comments in condemnation or otherwise about the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers, any more than I do about the case about which I made the statement.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge) : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he has adopted exactly the same approach to this matter as he has adopted towards the case of Hammersmith, and the financial scandals which happened there at a time when Hammersmith council was led by the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice)? Would not the logical conclusion from what we have heard from the Opposition today--

Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The hon. Gentleman made reference to my time as leader of Hammersmith and Fulham council. There was an audit investigation which completely exonerated all elected--

Madam Speaker : Order. That is not a point of order. I will try to call the hon. Gentleman if he makes some movement during this cross- questioning.

Mr. Nicholls : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it would be entirely wrong for the Labour party to condemn the hon. Member for Pendle before the final investigations are known, as what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander?

Mr. Gummer : It would be inappropriate for me to comment on a case which is currently before the courts, in precisely the same way as it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the details of a process which has not even reached the first of its public hearings.

Mr. Prentice : The Minister invited the House earlier not to rush to judgment. Is it not the case that, as far as Westminster council is concerned, the Conservatives never make any judgments at all? Was there not a deafening silence at the time of the 15p cemetery deal, and nothing was heard from the Government when Dame Shirley Porter was sacking senior officers right, left and centre?

What will people think of the nauseating double standards of this performance? Is it not the case that we are invited not to pass judgment where the Conservative flagship of Westminster is concerned, but that the Conservatives rush to judgment at the merest tittle-tattle about any Labour authority?

Column 357

Mr. Gummer : Anybody hearing this exchange would notice that a single standard of judgment--saying that people are innocent until they are proved guilty--has been clearly used by the Government, and by most sensible people throughout the House.

Mr. David Wilshire (Spelthorne) : Does my right hon. Friend agree that one definition of nauseating double standards could be a person who has not yet read a report, but makes a judgment on it ; who has not yet learned a final legal decision, yet comments on it ; who has not yet heard the views of the person who has been criticised, but condemns them ; and who has a Front-Bench spokesman who has been disqualified? Is that not a good definition of nauseating double standards?

Mr. Gummer : I would prefer to keep to the details of the report and to try to ensure that the due process is continued.

Mr. Peter Kilfoyle (Liverpool, Walton) : Does the Secretary of State recall that, eight years ago, 47 Liverpool councillors were at a similar stage in the process with the district auditor? Does the right hon. Gentleman also recall that the crime for which those 47 Liverpool councillors were surcharged and disqualified at that time was that they had failed to set a rate on the due date? It was a mistake, and that mistake cost the city council £106,000. Does the right hon. Gentleman also recall that nowhere in the report was there any suggestion of corruption, gerrymandering or of improper action, other than ineptitude in setting that rate?

Further to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), will the Secretary of State encourage his colleagues on the Government Front Bench to make the type of comments that were made all the way through the process during which those councillors fought the surcharge up to the House of Lords? Why are his colleagues so reticent about Westminster city council when, for almost two years, they damned Liverpool city councillors over that fundamental error?

Mr. Gummer : I should not like to comment on the nature of a mistake which means that one misses the date for fixing the rates. I have made a clear statement that, if the allegations were proved true, I would utterly condemn the actions, and I would expect the due process of law to continue to its proper end. I cannot think that any sensible person could say more in the light of what the district auditor says in the document which he has issued today. That is a position which the hon. Member would have expected in any circumstances. I hope that he will take the same position today.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin (Colchester, North) : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Westminster council remains one of the best housing authorities in London compared with its neighbours, which have a sorry record in dealing with homelessness, dilapidation, arrears and empty properties? Will he confirm that it has never been the intention of Government legislatiion to make it a crime to increase home ownership and improve diversity of tenure in our council housing estates?

Mr. Gummer : I think that I ought to keep clearly to what I said and not make any specific comments about Westminster. I am proud that 1.8 million people now own their homes who would not have owned them if it had not

Column 358

been for the right to buy. The right to buy was fought tooth and nail by the Labour party until Labour Members found opposing it politically so disadvantageous that they had to agree with it. Except for those general comments, I ought to keep myself free of any comments on Westminster.

Mr. Paul Boateng (Brent, South) : Regardless of the individual culpability of members of Westminster city council, and bearing in mind the district auditor's findings on the management, control and administration of the housing department of Westminster city council, will the Secretary of State instruct his officials to review the interpretation that the council has traditionally put on its obligations to house the homeless?

Will he bear in mind the attitude of that council over many years, including the period in question, which has been to offload its responsibilities towards the homeless on to neighbouring councils, including my own? Will he show the same regard for the rights of individuals who are homeless as he shows for the rights of Dame Shirley Porter and his Conservative colleagues?

Mr. Gummer : Of course there is a good deal of movement into Westminster from outside. I have already announced that, during this month, I shall publish a consultation document on homelessness. The fact that it is to be published has been welcomed by Shelter and other organisations. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will then be able to see the terms and conditions under which we shall be operating.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson (Aberdeen, South) : Can my right hon. Friend tell the House whether the same rules apply in Scotland? Does the Audit Commission have the power to investigate the nepotism, the jobs for the boys and the allocation of funds on the basis of religion, all of which are so rife in Monklands district council?

Mr. Gummer : I shall have to ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to be in touch with my hon. Friend on that matter. I think that in general it is true that, if any local elector, ratepayer or council taxpayer feels that there has been some misuse of funds, he can ask the district auditor to investigate. That is the position, and that is what we in the Department of the Environment in England certainly recommend when there is such a complaint.

Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East) : It would be bad enough if we were dealing only with matters of local government finance and homelessness--serious as those matters are--but we are dealing with matters of gerrymandering and electoral fiddles and fixes. They are not isolated. There are reports which show that 4 million or so people are missing from electoral registers in the United Kingdom. Most of them have disappeared from the register during the period of operation of the Government.

That position should be examined. The reason why we should have the report in front of us is that we as a House should have special responsibility for matters of electoral registration, electoral rights and equity between electoral areas. That is what the report has revealed is wrong, and what we should see the details of.

Mr. Gummer : I find it difficult to understand how the hon. Gentleman can suggest that a report which he cannot have read because he does not have a copy since the report

Column 359

went only to those whom the auditors suggested, reveals or proves anything. The auditor himself has said that this is a preliminary report.

We in the House have a particular responsibility to ensure equity. On the completion of these processes, no doubt the House will want to examine whatever the final reports say in great detail. One issue which will be of considerable importance is the one raised by the hon. Gentleman. I raised it and mentioned it specifically in my statement.

Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby) : Is my right hon. Friend aware that the director or possibly the deputy director of Westminster city council housing department attended and addressed a meeting at the end of last year of the all-party homelessness group, of which I and many Labour Members are members? He explained many of the difficulties of Westminster city council housing, particu-larly the influx of people from outside the capital and outside the country.

Madam Speaker : Question, please.

Mr. Robathan : I am coming to the question, Madam Speaker. We were impressed by the speech. I think that that goes for hon. Members from all parties. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the record of Westminster city council in housing homeless people is extremely good and bears comparison with that of any other council in the country?

Mr. Gummer : I have already taken the self-denying ordinance that I will not comment on the history of housing in Westminster.

Mr. Bill Olner (Nuneaton) : Is the Secretary of State aware that many people will be watching his response to questions on his statement? Is he further aware that his statement and comments and his closing around and cocooning the problems in Westminster--not allegations, but reported facts- -will cause much distress to councillors of all political persuasions? There will be distress that he has not more roundly condemned the atrocious goings-on at Westminster city council. There is no doubt whatever that empty properties were boarded up and had steel doors put on them to prevent them being let to tenants. It is an absolute disgrace, and he should know it.

Mr. Gummer : I have said clearly that, if those allegations are true, they must be condemned in the roundest and fullest possible way. However, I do not believe that there is a councillor in the country who would want himself or herself to be condemned on the basis of a statement by a district auditor who has specifically said that it does not constitute the type of findings to which the hon. Gentleman refers. It is no good the hon. Gentleman making that point. He is here to defend the rights of individuals to be heard. They must first be heard ; then justice may be done. He will join me in ensuring that justice is done.

Mr. Rod Richards (Clwyd, North-West) : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that several Lambeth borough councillors have been surcharged and disqualified, including the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley)? Is he aware that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) has appointed

Column 360

the hon. Lady to be the Opposition spokesman on transport and London? Does not that suggest a double standard on the part of the Leader of the Opposition?

Mr. Gummer : At most I think that that is tangential to the issue under discussion.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) : Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Prime Minister was wrong when he said that we were dealing with "allegations" today? We are dealing with the provisional findings of the district auditor. Is the Secretary of State aware that not one person in this country will believe that he would have made such a softly, softly, approach if he were not dealing with a favoured Tory council at a time when it is led by one so close to the Tory party leadership?

Why does he not admit that, time and again, Labour Members gave warnings in the House about what was going on in Westminster--the sale of cemeteries for 15p and other malpractices--but the Tory Government, including the Secretary of State, were not interested? No doubt they were hoping that the council would be able to get away with it. Now that it has been found out, he has a chance to condemn those malpractices, which are some of the worst committed by a local authority.

Mr. Gummer : I am reminded of the comments of the former Member for Huyton about the hon. Gentleman's judgment. The district auditor himself says :

"My Note of provisional findings does not constitute any decision or finding adverse to any individual."

I have to keep to what the auditor says if his independence is to be upheld by a House that insisted upon it in the first place. We have heard the hon. Gentleman's speech in various versions before, and it was as silly then as it is now.

Mr. Richard Tracey (Surbiton) : Is my right hon. Friend aware that Westminster city council has expressed extreme surprise at the provisional findings of the district auditor and has also regretted the non-publication of the report to the public and the media? Indeed, in a public statement, the council said :

"It would have preferred the subject to be dealt with in an open manner, consistent with the highest standard of probity." Is my right hon. Friend also aware that, as recently as the beginning of this week, the council implored the district auditor to publish this report in full?

Mr. Gummer : I thank my hon. Friend for those statements. I still believe that, in defending the independence of the auditor, it is right for the House and for me as the Minister responsible for local government to allow the auditor to use his powers as he thinks fit. When he has done so, and we have come to the conclusion of that process, it would be proper for the House to consider the circumstances and decide whether a better way could be found or whether we wish to confirm the present system.

It is perfectly reasonable for Westminster city council to comment, but the House should remember that the auditor operates under rules that have been confirmed by the House, and that it ought not to change them except at the end of a process rather than in the middle of it.

Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West) : Why do Conservative Back Benchers insist that all councils are innocent until they are proved to be Labour councils? What will the Secretary of State do about the people who have been badly wronged--the homeless and the unhoused in Westminster? We have had a fortnight of allegations and

Column 361

proof of the most dreadful misconduct by members of the Government. When will we hear a single syllable of remorse, humility or penitence from the Conservative side?

Mr. Gummer : There have been one or two cases of Labour councils not reaching the highest standards known to man. Indeed, there are cases in which they have been attacked not only by Conservative Members but by Opposition Members. The hon. Gentleman is therefore being a little naive in making that comment.

I maintain that, when the district auditor has specifically said that his findings do not constitute decisions or findings adverse to any person, it would be very odd if those of us who do not have access to the 100,000 pages of documentation to which he has had access should try to second- guess him. I have condemned any action which has been shown to be wrong, and have said that, if the allegations turn out to be supported and are proved, no one will be tougher than I in his opposition to them or his insistence that the law should take its full course.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South) : Does the Secretary of State agree that up to 9,000 dwellings were designated by the housing committee of Westminster city council and endorsed by it? Does that not suggest that up to 30,000 people who were not thereby housed could be homeless? Does he have the figure for the number of persons involved? If he has not got it, will he undertake to find out from the council the number of people rendered homeless in London or dumped on other boroughs as a result of the matters mentioned in the Magill report?

Mr. Gummer : I have been careful not to be led to discuss the nature of Westminster's housing policies by some Conservative Members, because I cannot see a way in which I could do so without detracting from the independent position that the district auditor has enjoined upon all. I shall therefore do the same in the hon. Gentleman's case as I have done with my hon. and right hon. Friends.

Mr. Ken Eastham (Manchester, Blackley) : As we understand it, the inquiry has taken four years, and some of the figures published today seem to intimate that £21 million might be involved. It is reasonable to suppose that, with further delays and as time goes on, considerable extra interest will accrue. It is quite possible that the surcharge could even be £25 million by this time next year. Would it not be in the interests of the people who are going to be

Column 362

surcharged to get the matter sorted out, rather than their having to face a bill for £25 million as against £21 million today?

Mr. Gummer : There is no doubt that the district auditor has calculated the interest, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that that issue is likely to have been drawn to the attention of those concerned on both sides. I think that he will agree that, ultimately, it is up to the auditor and to those concerned to see that the due process of law is carried through, and also that they take such advice as is reasonable for anyone in such circumstances.

Madam Speaker : We now come to the allocation of time motion

Mr. Straw : On a point of order, Madam Speaker, about the conduct of the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls). Earlier this afternoon, during these questions, the hon. Gentleman made a very serious allegation in respect of my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), without having given him any notice of his intention to do so.

First, will you confirm that, although it is not a rule of the House, it is an important convention that, when such allegations are going to be made by an hon. Member, notice is given? Secondly, since the allegation was wholly inaccurate, can the hon. Gentleman be given the opportunity to withdraw it?

Mr. Nicholls rose --

Madam Speaker : May I deal with the first question ?

Of course it is the custom in this House that, when another hon. Member has been named and is not actually in the Chamber, he or she should be given notice. It is not the case when the hon. Member is in the Chamber. In this case, I gave the hon. Member for Pendle an opportunity to answer immediately.

Mr. Nicholls : Further to that point of order and your ruling, Madam Speaker. The second point that I would have made was that in no sense did I make an allegation against the hon. Gentleman. I said that it would have been as wrong to condemn him on the basis of a preliminary report, as it would have been to condemn present council members-- [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker : Order. I think that I have dealt with that matter.

Column 363

Points of Order

5.10 pm

Mr. Simon Huges (Southwark and Bermondsey) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You were good enough to grant me an Adjournment debate tomorrow on the future of Guy's hospital. In order to prepare for it, I have sought to obtain a document, allegedly a public one, that has been produced by the local hospital trust, and circulated, including to the Secretary of State for Health, called, "The Appraisal of Options for the Future of Guy's and St. Thomas's Hospital." Just as the district auditor and his document are accountable to the Secretary of State for the Environment, so the hospital trust is accountable to the Secretary of State for Health, and the right hon. Lady is accountable to us. There is no other way in which we can hold Ministers and their appointees to the health service to account. That document will not be released by the trust, which says, "Refer to the Secretary of State." The Secretary of State's office will not release it and says, "Refer to the trust." All I want to know is whether you, Madam Speaker, have made it clear, as you have done in respect of other documents, that, if it is a document on which decisions are to be made by a public body accountable to the House, it should not be circulated partially without being put in the Library of the House or made available in the Vote Office. That would enable not just me but all hon. Members with an interest in this matter and similar ones to study it. I should be grateful for your help to obtain that document.

Madam Speaker : The hon. Gentleman has not given me notice of that point of order, and I have no idea to which document he is referring. It is the responsibility of the Secretary of State. I note that the Leader of the House is on

Column 364

the Front Bench, and I am sure that he has taken note of that point of order. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can pursue that matter.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton) : Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman gave my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health notice of his point of order, but I am sure that she will consider it. If I may venture a bit beyond my role, I understand that the rule on documents, if it can be called that, is that, once a document has been quoted from partially, the House has the right to see the whole of it. I would need further guidance on that.

Mr. Ian Bruce (South Dorset) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Column 156 of the Official Report for 11 January contains a typographical error about the cost of building the new Abbey Wood Procurement Executive headquarters in Bristol. I raise this as a point of order because I have been in touch with the Editors of Hansard , who tell me that that mistake can be altered in the bound version.

That serious error means that the cost of those headquarters, at £345 million, is being quoted as £315 million, which in itself is £70 million more than that previously quoted. It is a matter of public interest, and anyone who referred to Hansard and did not wait to study the bound volume, which is produced many months later, would be misled. Surely the House should have a better way of flagging up typographical errors so that people who use reference material can obtain the right figures.

Madam Speaker : The hon. Gentleman seems to have achieved that effect by getting that point of order into Hansard.

Column 365

Orders of the Day

Non-Domestic Rating Bill (Allocation of Time)

5.12 pm

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton) : I beg to move

That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Non-Domestic Rating Bill :

Committee, Report and Third Reading

1.--(1) The proceedings in Committee and on consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed at this day's sitting and, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock.

(2) On the conclusion of the proceedings in Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question and, if he reports the Bill with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put. (3) No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings in Committee or on consideration of the Bill are taken.

(4) Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) shall not apply to this Order.

Conclusion of proceedings

2.--(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or the Speaker shall, subject to sub-paragraph (2), forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)--

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair ;

(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed ;

(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

(2) If, apart from this sub-paragraph, two or more Questions would fall to be put by the Chairman under sub-paragraph (1)(d) that successive clauses should stand part of the Bill, the Chairman shall instead put the single Question that each of those clauses shall so stand part.

(3) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) or (2) shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(4) If at this day's sitting a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) stands over to Seven o'clock, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Extra time 3. Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill.

Dilatory Motions 4. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings at this day's sitting on the Bill shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Supplemental orders 5.--(1) The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.

(2) If at this day's sitting the House is adjourned, or if this day's sitting is suspended, before the time at which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, no

Column 366

notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving 6. Nothing in this Order shall prevent any proceedings to which this Order applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by this Order.

Recommittal 7.--(1) References in this Order to proceedings on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of, recommittal.

(2) No debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and the Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

I see no need to detain the House with a speech of great length. In a sense, I need hardly say that I regret having to introduce the motion, since there is no doubt that had we been met with a sensible approach by the Opposition, the Bill could have been dealt with readily in a day, as we had hoped. Nevertheless, I make no apology for moving the motion, because yesterday's performance and, indeed, the Opposition's current stance on all Government business have made it quite clear that their intention is simply to bring about difficulty and delay.

Had we proceeded as we had originally hoped, we should simply have had a long and boring night of tedious and repetitious speeches in Committee to follow a long and boring day of tedious and repetitious speeches on Second Reading.

Next Section

Home Page