| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Westminster (District Auditor's Report)
3.32 pm
Mr. Peter Brooke (City of London and Westminster, South) (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the district auditor's report on Westminster city council published today.
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Gummer): The appointed auditor for Westminster city council, Mr. John Magill, has today published his findings in relation to the objections to the accounts of Westminster city council, in the form of a "public interest report", made under section 15(3) of the Local Government Finance Act 1982. He has at the same time published a "statement of reasons" on which his decisions are based.
This case is still subject to the due process of law. In these circumstances, it is appropriate for me to inform the House about the auditor's decisions, but not to comment on them. [Laughter.] In that, I am following the traditions of the House.
The auditor's decisions are as follows: he has issued a certificate in the sum of £31,677,064 to each ofMr. Graham England, Mr. Peter Hartley, Mr. Paul Hayler, Mr. Bill Phillips, Dame Shirley Porter and Councillor David Weeks, under section 20 of the 1982 Act. They are jointly and severally liable for that amount. He has decided not to uphold the objections in respect of Councillor Judith Warner, my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg) and Mr. Robert Lewis.
The auditor has now issued his certificate. Those surcharged have 28 days from the date they receive the auditor's statement of reasons to appeal against his decision to the High Court. I understand that they intend to do so.
I have made it clear that I would condemn utterly any failure to meet the highest standards of propriety, whenever it is found and whoever is found guilty.
If the decisions in respect of Westminster are upheld by the courts, I shall not hesitate to condemn those responsible as in any similar case, but neither the Government nor the House nor I should prejudge the findings of the courts.
Mr. Brooke:
While no subject is higher than the law, will my right hon. Friend confirm, first, that those accused are also subject to the protection of the law until due legal process has been concluded, especially under a somewhat hybrid procedure and when the number of people being investigated has risen as well as fallen during the course of the investigation?
Secondly, although I have never criticised the district auditor--contrary to what has been said by those on the Opposition Front Bench--as the case has now continued for eight years and is not yet concluded, does my right hon. Friend believe that, when it has been concluded, it would be sensible to revisit the procedure because of the strain that it imposes, not only on those investigated and their families but on the district auditor?
Mr. Gummer:
I have to say to my right hon. Friend that one of the greatest difficulties in politics is to uphold the integrity of the law while making it clear that, when the law has made its final decision, we must abide by that decision, and that, in all circumstances, however close or distant we may be from those who are condemned, we must condemn them, too. However, that demands of us the reticence of not judging people who still have a case to put. I have not prejudged any case in which Labour councillors have been involved, nor will I until the courts have found. Then I shall join in any rumbustious argument that anyone wants to have.
As to my right hon. Friend's second point, I do not believe that it is right during such a process to comment on the nature of the process or to suggest that perhaps a different process would be better. I have no doubt that people will discuss that afterwards, but this is not the moment to make a decision.
Mr. Frank Dobson (Holborn and St. Pancras):
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the procedure being followed by the auditor in this case was laid down by an Act of Parliament passed by the present Government?
Why will he not condemn the Westminster Tory councillors who have been found guilty of using £32 million of public funds to help a Tory election campaign at the expense of homeless families? Why will he not acknowledge that the scandal was not caused by a few maverick councillors in Westminster, but involved the entire Tory party from top to bottom, including people at Tory central office and 10 Downing street?
Does he accept that Tory Members, including--sadly, as far as I am concerned--the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the right hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg) and the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford) were all involved to a greater or lesser extent?
Does the Secretary of State accept that the huge sum of £32 million wasted by those Tories exceeds the annual budgets of no fewer than 272 local councils in England, including places such as Basildon, Milton Keynes, Peterborough, the Wrekin and Plymouth? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that that sum of money would have built 600 new homes for the homeless or 10 new schools, or would have paid for 1,200 much-needed teachers in the inner cities?
Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that, in the 1980s, he personally helped to rig the Government grant to help Westminster council to keep down its poll tax--or, as the Prime Minister just described it, local taxation? In view of this scandal, the scandal of homeless families being put by the same Westminster councillors into asbestos-ridden blocks, and the scandal of the Government continuing to rig the grants system in Westminster, will the right hon. Gentleman set up a public inquiry into this Tory Government's squalid relations with Tory Westminster over the last 10 years?
Will the Secretary of State take my word for it that, if this cowardly Tory Government will not set up that public inquiry, the incoming Labour Government will do so?
Mr. Gummer:
The public will now see how the legal processes would be treated by the Labour party. The public will now understand that Labour will leave nothing unused for party political advantage. Having heard the shameful betrayal of the legal system by the Leader of the Opposition, I was not surprised to hear what was saidby the right hon. Gentleman's sidekick and soon-to-be-sacked spokesman on the subject.
One reason that we were given parliamentary privilege was to defend the innocent and to speak up for people who could not otherwise make their case. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has used parliamentary privilege to smear a whole series of my right hon. and hon. Friends. He proved that by his use of the words
to be able to say afterwards, when those people have been shown not to be guilty of that which the hon. Gentleman claims, that he meant that they were covered by the word "lesser".
The only honourable way to deal with an issue of this kind is to say that, if someone is found by the courts of law to be guilty, one condemns unreservedly and without question--whoever that person is, however close one is to them, and for whatever party they happen to stand. Until that time, every person in Her Majesty's domains has the right to put his case--whether he is rich or poor, elected or unelected.
Mr. Eric Pickles (Brentwood and Ongar):
Is my right hon. Friend, in resisting commenting on the issue, aware that, if he had not resisted that temptation and condemned the councillors named in the district auditor's provisional report, he would have condemned people who have been exonerated by that report? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that the councillors named in the report took legal advice, and followed it to the letter? Does my right hon. Friend share my belief that people in this country are entitled to be presumed innocent until judged to be guilty?
Mr. Gummer:
I think that it is true that Labour Members who jump to condemn on the basis of the interim report must now explain to themselves how it was that they condemned a number of people who are not now under condemnation. It would be good for all of us to be reticent in the way that we approach this report--or the internal report in, for example, Islington, or reports from Hackney or any other boroughs or councils that are, in one way or another, under investigation.
There is no reason for any of us to jump to judgment. What we have to do is to allow the courts to decide and to be clear from the beginning that we will judge everybody equally without fear or favour. That is why I shall make no comment at all about whether people followed the legal advice. That would be to enter the areas that only the courts can, in the end, discuss and decide.
As to my hon. Friend's last point, I suggest simply that the way in which one judges people is whether they stand up for the rights of people they dislike, not whether they stand up for the rights of people they love.
Mr. David Rendel (Newbury):
Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that, whatever the legal position is in relation to the six who have been surcharged, the position of the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West
"to a greater or lesser extent"--
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |