| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Woodward: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As it is essential that we consider the whole business of impeachment and what might constitute grounds for a vote of no confidence, we must test the conditions that may arise. If we cannot think of any conditions for a vote of no confidence, the Government would be right to resist the amendment. However, if the Government properly considered the evidence available, they would have the humility to say that they have made a mistake and that they were wrong not to provide powers of impeachment.
When the mayor is elected next year, he will have control of £3.2 billion. That is a large sum of money, and the mayor will have great authority over how that money is spent. It is relevant to examine how candidates may spend that money if they became mayor. The way in which that money is spent may give rise to a vote of no confidence.
That London borough became a byword for waste and incompetence. It would be a tragedy if, as a result of the Government's arrogance and refusal to consider this issue, London became a byword for waste and incompetence. It is relevant that a borough such as Camden had a housing revenue account deficit of more than £1 million.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. The hon. Gentleman is again doing what I asked him not to do.
Mr. Woodward:
I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am testing a proposition. What would happen if someone had control of an account and irresponsibly allowed it to increase 24 times in a decade?
Mr. Gapes:
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. Is it in order for the debate to be used to slur the integrity of an individual, as is happening at the moment?
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
The hon. Gentleman can safely leave such matters to the Chair.
Mr. Woodward:
I am sure that we are all grateful for your guidance on this matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker,
We would have been delighted if the right hon. Gentleman had come to the House this afternoon to explain himself. We are sorry that he is not present. We understand why the Minister for Housing and Planning has directed his candidate not to be here. It is probably wise for him not to be present this afternoon.
Inquiries have been made into the running of some London councils. Those independent inquiries have had something to say about waste, incompetence, arrogance and corruption. When those allegations have been tested in the courts, some individuals have been fully acquitted, but some have not.
I am sure that hon. Members will remember the Appleby inquiry into Lambeth council in July 1995. It reported a catastrophic litany of fraud, mismanagement and dogmatic left-wing leadership that had resulted in the loss of millions of pounds and plunged the Authority into chaos. The inquiry stated:
The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) accused me of casting a slur. We give credit where credit is due. Although they beggar belief, the House should be reminded of the views of the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras when he was shadow Environment Secretary. In 1995, he condemned Lambeth. He said:
Mr. Woodward:
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The difficulty I have is that the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras carried out in Camden the very policies for which he condemned Lambeth.
Lambeth now has £929 million of debt that was built up under Labour. We are concerned that similar debt should not build up when we have a mayor for London. If a mayor for London allows such a debt to build up, he should be dismissed by a vote of no confidence.
Incompetence in Lambeth continues. We now learn that Lambeth council has been exposed as so incompetent that a squatter is claiming ownership of a £400,000 house. He has lived in it for 16 years and has paid no rent because the council forgot that it owned the house. What is the council's response? It says that it will try to reclaim the property. It is spending council tax payers' money on legal fees. If a mayor presided over such incompetence, the Assembly should have the power to dismiss him.
What if the mayor abused the power to raise revenue in London? In Hammersmith and Fulham, the council tax has increased by 50 per cent. since 1993. As a result,
five old people's homes have been closed and there is no provision to replace them; 70 home helps have been sacked; only 34 per cent. of council house repair appointments are kept; burial costs have gone up by 60 per cent. and cremation costs by 50 per cent.; and libraries have been closed. If the mayor presided over such chaos in London, should not the Assembly be able to get rid of him? Does it have to wait years to dismiss the mayor, with people paying more and more tax to meet higher and higher bills?
What if the Assembly were to discover that fraud was taking place under the mayor's administration? The Minister for Housing and Planning tells us that it is all right, because if the mayor does not have a conviction of more than three months inside Wormwood Scrubs all is well. Presumably, his question and answer sessions would take place every day on the hour in the exercise yard. Some of us think that that is not a good standard to set for the mayor of London.
Mr. Andy King (Rugby and Kenilworth):
The Conservatives should change their candidate then.
Mr. Woodward:
The interesting thing about the hon. Gentleman's remarks is that the gentleman to whom he referred has twice been exonerated by a DTI investigation.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. I do not want the House to talk about specific personalities or candidates.
Mr. Woodward:
I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for reminding us of that, because, as the DTI said, there was no case to answer.
Even if a mayor is not charged with a criminal offence, the Assembly should take action if there are strong grounds for assuming that fraud has taken place in his administration. As the Bill stands, the Assembly would be powerless to dismiss the mayor. Some hon. Members may believe that that could not happen. However, in the Appleby report, some 500 council employees were believed to have committed fraud by falsely claiming housing benefit and income support.
If a mayor presides over waste, incompetence and fraud, is it preposterous--to use the Minister's word--that the Assembly should be able to dismiss the person who presides over such chaos?
Mr. Gapes:
The hon. Gentleman is obviously not aware that neither the mayor not the Greater London Authority is responsible for housing or housing benefit.
Mr. Woodward:
What a telling point the hon. Gentleman makes. That was absolutely first class. We have all enjoyed reading the Bill, and are grateful for his telling observation. We take note of his point, but we have read the Bill, too.
Regrettably, corruption has been a hallmark of left-wing councils. It is obvious that the Labour party is still worried about low council standards. In August 1997, newspapers reported that the Prime Minister had ordered an inquiry into the activities of Labour-run councils throughout Britain in an attempt to avoid allegations of corruption or impropriety.
Senior Labour officials told newspapers that the Government's image had been damaged by revelations about authorities in Glasgow, Monklands, Doncaster and
Hackney. More than 30 authorities in various parts of Britain were reportedly being investigated by district auditors, by the police or by the party's own national executive committees. If such revelations were to appear one day about the mayor, surely the Assembly should have the power to dismiss him. Does the Minister still believe that that would be preposterous?
The mayor will have the power to create a climate of opinion. In London, we rightly depend on the authority and high standing of our police, and our support for the police is essential if we are to have a well-protected city. The mayor's attitude to the police is also essential to fostering a spirit of trust and co-operation. We are now told that some mayoral candidates are prepared to bend their views to comply with the views of the Prime Minister.
Labour often wants to rewrite the past but, if there is a Labour mayor, that past will not be ignored. We should not dismiss from memory the views of those who have said such things as:
There are many reasons why the question of impeachment is relevant. The only thing that is feeble is the Minister's attitude: he is too arrogant even to consider the proposal. He may think it old-fashioned. He may be one of those Labour Members who have changed their views on everything that they stood for when they were elected. The truth is, however, that London needs a strong voice. London needs a mayor in whom it can believe. London needs an Assembly that will be able to throw out a mayor who exceeds or abuses his powers, or behaves in a corrupt, fraudulent or bad way.
"Lambeth is in an appalling mess and it is unlikely that any department is properly managed."
That is relevant to London and to the mayoral election next year. If the mayor were responsible for waste and mismanagement, we would expect an inquiry to be held. If the Assembly were to uphold the recommendations of that inquiry, it might want to dismiss the mayor. Regrettably, councils in London have had such policies. We believe that it is a mistake not to be able to dismiss the mayor.
"Waste and incompetence cannot be tolerated. What happened was a disgrace for everybody concerned."
Mr. Raynsford:
Quite right.
"The task, surely, is to break the Metropolitan Police Force as at present constituted."
The hon. Gentleman who made those remarks may regret them today, but we should not forget such remarks, and we should not forget that the GLC spent £400,000 a year on a propaganda battle with the police. The expression of such views would rightly require the Assembly to review the question of whether it had confidence in the mayor.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |