| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Merchant Shipping
That the draft Merchant Shipping (Ro-Ro Passenger Ship Survivability) Regulations 1997, which were laid before this House on 23rd January, be approved.--[Mr. McLoughlin.]
Question agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes):
With permission, I shall put together motions 4 to 7.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14A(1) (Consideration of draft deregulation orders),
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. McLoughlin.]
Mr. David Evans (Welwyn Hatfield):
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to bring this issue to the Floor of the House. It is crucial to the financial well-being of all my constituents. To paint the picture, I should like to start with Labour-controlled Welwyn Hatfield council's agreement with two property companies--Slough Estates and the Carroll group. In the late 1980s, putting it simply, Slough Estates was to build a shopping centre in Welwyn Garden City, without any restriction on the type of shops, but was nervous, to say the least, that its investment would be undermined if the Park Plaza scheme, hereafter referred to as The Galleria, did not have a strict tenants mix agreement as to the type of shops.
The council agreed to Slough's request, so the company proceeded to develop the site, and an impressive shopping complex it is, too. The Carroll group pressed for the relaxation of the tenants mix agreement. In an aide-memoire prepared for the Labour council working party, Martin Hayes, the then chief finance officer, said:
If that was not bad enough, more scandal was to follow. The new Labour leader of the council in 1996, Mr. Ray Little, was offered, three days before going to court, an out-of-court settlement of £16 million by Slough Estates. Without any consultation with the council officers or Labour colleagues, Mr. Little refused on behalf of all the
people of Welwyn Hatfield. He should be locked up and the keys thrown away. He single-handedly robbed the people of Welwyn Hatfield--my constituents--of £32 million. What is more, he could not care less.
Can my hon. Friend the Minister please say whether any application was made to the Department of the Environment for permission to use the council's capital receipts to settle the Slough Estates debt when the offer was made and we had the chance to settle the case for just £16 million, before it went to court? If so, was permission refused by the Government?
As a result of that Stalinist slap in the face, Slough Estates took the Labour council to court and won a judgment of £48 million, which has now increased to £53 million with the addition of costs and interest accruing. I repeat the figures in case the House did not hear me. The £48 million has now increased to £53 million. The Labour council decided to appeal, but then withdrew the appeal on legal advice. It is now trying to find the money to pay the debt.
This fiasco should make people think about the consequences of voting Labour, not only in Welwyn Hatfield but across the nation. Where Labour is in control, we have financial incompetence, lies and bankruptcy.
How can we settle this appalling state of affairs? If we wait for my Labour opponent in the forthcoming general election to speak on the subject, we shall wait for ever. Her silence has been deafening, but then she lives in Cambridge. The people of Welwyn Hatfield tell me that she is not interested, because it is not her problem, but for people who live in the constituency, it certainly is.
I want my hon. Friend the Minister to watch my lips. Is he looking? However this debt is to be paid, which it will have to be, David Evans will not allow it to be paid by a surcharge on every household in Welwyn Hatfield, with a council tax bill of at least £1,500. I will say it again, just to make sure that my hon. Friend has heard me. However this debt is to be paid, which it will have to be, David Evans will not allow it to be paid by the people of Welwyn Hatfield through a surcharge on every household, with a council tax bill of at least £1,500.
After the payment of £10 million from reserves, the amount owing is now about £43 million. That is increasing by a staggering £7,000 a day in bank interest. The council has £15 million on deposit from council house sales, which is earning interest at about £900,000 per year. It would like to pay that amount to Slough Estates, thereby reducing the debt to £28 million, with the balance to be paid with the receipts from large-scale transfer of housing stock. I have supported that approach fiercely in the past.
As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, I have been in constant contact in person, by telephone and by letter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. However, I am well aware that there are one or two stumbling blocks that might be difficult to surmount in order to bring the current difficulties of Welwyn Hatfield to a quick conclusion. I emphasise that those stumbling blocks have been created not by the Government, but by the attitude of the Labour-controlled Welwyn Hatfield council.
The first problem seems to me to be how the council would make up the loss of £900,000 interest accruing on £15 million on deposit, which goes directly into income available for expenditure by the council. One presumes that the shortfall would be added to the council tax bills. If that is the Labour council's intention, I say no way.
Does my hon. Friend the Minister believe that the council, having reduced the debt to £28 million, has the incentive to embark seriously on the transfer of housing stock when, over many years, it has dragged its feet on embracing Government policy? That policy would allow my constituents to buy their own homes or agree to have them run by a housing association, which has the interests of tenants at heart.
Even as recently as last month, the Labour group leader said on the front page of Welwyn Hatfield Times that she believed that Labour councillors would refuse to sanction the transfer of housing stock to meet the judgment against the council in the Slough Estates fraud.
In the past couple of weeks, however, the council seems to have had a change of heart. I wonder why. Unfortunately for my constituents, not least those living in council-owned property, the damage has been done by Labour councillors and their cohorts on the council. Their statement in the local newspaper has sent a disgraceful message to tenants, who, as we all know, have their own vote to decide whether a housing association should take over their properties. Labour councillors have effectively said, "Don't vote for the transfer of your home to housing associations." We all know, however, that if they did that under that Labour-controlled council, they certainly would not be any worse off than they are now.
Perhaps the Minister would like to take this opportunity to tell my constituents about the virtues of transferring housing stock to a housing association and the benefits that tenants would enjoy. In my opinion, with its message to tenants, the Labour council is once again trying to obstruct Government policy that would help the people of Welwyn Hatfield and improve the quality of life for tenants, but as we all know, that council says one thing and does another.
Perhaps the Minister can also confirm that whatever is the outstanding debt, 100 per cent. of receipts from the transfer of housing stock to housing associations will be available for use to pay off the debt and not just 25 per cent., according to the current rules.
That the draft Deregulation (Employment in Bars) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 16th December, be approved.
Question agreed to.
That the draft Deregulation (Casinos) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 20th January, be approved.
That the draft Deregulation (Validity of Civil Preliminaries to Marriage) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 20th January, be approved.
That the draft Deregulation (Gaming on Sunday in Scotland) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 20th January, be approved.--[Mr. McLoughlin.]
6.19 pm
"In view of the very recent approval to the Howard centre and the sensitivity that those developers have always shown to the Park Plaza scheme, the decision to relax the tenants mix agreement in the way suggested cannot be minuted at this stage. Nevertheless, such a decision would have to be acted on behind the scenes."
So there we have it. I repeat what Mr. Hayes said:
"In view of the very recent approval to the Howard centre and the sensitivity that those developers have always shown to the Park Plaza scheme, the decision to relax the tenants mix agreement in the way suggested cannot be minuted at this stage. Nevertheless, such a decision would have to be acted on behind the scenes."
The A1(M) working party, which has a Labour majority and includes six Labour members, accepted that decision and the full council endorsed it, although not all councillors were informed of the policy change. In the recent ruling against the council following the change in 1987, the judge said:
"Thereafter, after 1987 there was a policy of lies."
So there we have it again. If I may, I shall repeat what the judge said:
"Thereafter, after 1987 there was a policy of lies."
The leader of the council was Stan Atkinson, a Labour councillor. The deputy leader at that time was Councillor Ray Little, who stood in 1992 as my Labour opponent at the general election and subsequently became leader of the council. Councillor Chris Gillen was chairman of the 1987 A1(M) working party. The judge said:
"They acted as a nucleus who steered the rest."
They are, to their eternal shame, still councillors and have not done what any honourable person should do in these circumstances--resign.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |