§ Mr. SpeakerI shall call the hon. Members in the order in which they notified me that they would seek to make application under Standing Order No. 9.
§ Mr. George Cunningham (Islington, South and Finsbury)I seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
recent decisions by London borough councils and by the Greater London council to use public funds for party political purposes.The evidence on which this application is based is documentary, not assertions, from confidential documents which have reached me in the course of this week. You might immediately think, Mr. Speaker, that if there is truth behind the allegations there must be a legal remedy. There is not, in fact, in part because section 137 of the Local Government Act gives to each local authority power to spend up to a 2p rate, which in the case of my borough council, Islington, means £1 million, for purposes which are hardly circumscribed at all. That, if only that, gives local authorities tremendous leeway to use money improperly.I submit that if the facts, which I shall allude to only briefly, are at all true there has almost never been a better basis for Parliament to be given an opportunity to examine the matter further, because what is involved here is attempts by people in high places in local authorities in London—
§ Mr. Frank Allaun (Salford, East)Where is the evidence?
§ Mr. CunninghamIf the hon. Gentleman will wait, he is welcome to have the evidence and he can say what he thinks about it on some other occasion. I do not think that he will be very happy about the facts that I shall give. If the facts are correct, what is involved is an insidious process by which people in high places in local authorities in London are using public funds to pursue party political ends. More seriously, it is an insidious process by which people in high places are losing sight of the distinction between party and public. It is a process which, in other countries, Czechoslovakia for example, led to the loss of their parliamentary democracy. That is something in which Government must be interested.
You will recollect, Mr. Speaker, that a few weeks ago the House took such a serious view of the possible allocation of funds by the Greater London council on a political basis that it referred one manifestation of that to the Committee of Privileges, which has that issue before it currently.
On 4 January this year, a meeting took place at Islington town hall between GLC councillors and Islington borough councillors. The main discussion was about how the GLC was to try to switch its funds on a political basis. The GLC representatives then pointed out that they were in the middle of an exercise along those lines. They said that part of the exercise
was to establish how the GLC, through its budget, could assist Labour boroughs by taking on some of their programmes. Final discussions would take place in the Labour group on 9 February"—that is, tomorrow—with the budget being made on 15 February.
§ Mr. Frank AllaunOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerI will take the point of order afterwards. The hon. Member will outline why the matter is urgent and specific—
§ Mr. Frank AllaunExactly.
§ Mr. Speaker—and why the House should turn its attention to it.
§ Mr. CunninghamThe quotation that I have just read shows that certain decisions are to be taken tomorrow and certain others next week. Some of the urgency of the matter is that these secret documents—
§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)It has been going on for weeks.
§ Mr. CunninghamYes, it has been going on for months; we have just received the proof of it.
Another part of the document says:
The mechanism for redistribution would be for GLC committees to consider individual borough-sponsored projects, but it was envisaged that the GLC Labour group would ensure a strategic view.Those of us who deal with boroughs such as Islington know what is meant by "taking a strategic view." It means switching the money to the people of whom one approves politically.That is the least—
§ Mr. SkinnerAt least the councillors faced the electors in Islington—the hon. Gentleman did not.
§ Mr. CunninghamThat is the least of the serious considerations that I ask you to take into account, Mr. Speaker. For the past few months, leaders of Labour councils, including the leader of the GLC, have been meeting together. There is nothing wrong with that, but, on 7 December, they met—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman knows that he must not make the sort of speech that he would make if his application were granted. He must justify his application.
§ Mr. CunninghamThe justification is that the evidence is only now available—[Interruption.] I am only picking out enough points to show the nature of what could be deployed on a fuller occasion. What happened on 7 December, and what is happening now, is that a decision was taken to use £2,000 of public funds from each of the 10 Labour-controlled councils that were represented at the meeting to finance that meeting of Labour leaders in London.
That meeting was chaired by the leader of Islington borough council and attended by leaders of about 10 Labour-dominated councils in London. A large part of the discussion was directed to how public funds in the hands of those councils should be used to finance the continued operation of a party-politically based association of Labour leaders in London.
§ Mr. SkinnerThat is a great idea.
§ Mr. CunninghamThe meeting was of a confessedly party political character—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The House must bear with the argument—
§ Mr. SpeakerI know, but the hon. Gentleman is not alone in using an application under Standing Order No. 9 for that purpose. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) has almost finished.
§ Mr. CunninghamI perfectly understand that Labour Members do not wish—
§ Mr. Frank AllaunWhat about Heseltine?
§ Mr. CunninghamIf it were the case that London Labour councils were using their rate money to finance this kind of operation; if it were the case—the evidence in the documents proves that it is the case—that Labour councils were using officers of borough councils to conduct campaigns of a party political nature; if it were the case that they have already used £2,000 each to finance that—some of it was used to plan how they could use £4,000 apiece to finance its continuation—I submit that that would be a justification for my case. The only question is whether there is evidence to support that.
§ Mr. SkinnerIt has got more to do with O'Halloran than anything else.
§ Mr. CunninghamLabour Members do not want to hear this because they do not want the facts to be known.
Officers of London borough councils were present at the meeting, and so were representatives of the Labour party, as such. So were two Labour Members of Parliament. They undertook to give their co-operation in this endeavour. That is an abuse of public funds and public offices—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman has come to his final point, and I must hear it.
§ Mr. CunninghamI shall put my point in the form of a question, and then a statement. If it were the case that one Labour council in London were using thousands and thousands and thousands of pounds of rate money to finance a free give-away newspaper, if the people who applied for that money were a group that contained one Labour councillor, one officer of the council of known party affiliation, namely Labour, and if the committee that was to run the newspaper had, under its constitution, to include only one political representative who must be a representative of the local government committee of the three Labour parties of Islington, would not that position justify a debate in the House? [Interruption.] Even the noise that has been taking place during my presentation—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The House is doing itself no good.
§ Mr. Skinnerrose—
§ Mr. Frank Allaunrose—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will put his submission to me because I have two other applications before we get to the main business of the day.
§ Mr. CunninghamEven the attempts to prevent this application being made are evidence of what is at issue. There are some occasions when Parliament must see the incipient cancer that exists. It will take just half a day further to expose the issue. I submit that my application is justified. I hope you will take my points into consideration, Mr. Speaker. There are thousands and thousands of decent members of the Labour party outside the House who would also wish this matter to be exposed.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman gave me notice before 12 o'clock this morning that he would seek to leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
recent decisions by the London borough councils and the Greater London council to use public funds for party political purposes.As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9, I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the order but to give no reasons for my decision. I listened very carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said, but I must rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order. Therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.
Mr. Bruce Milan (Glasgow, Craigton)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have just heard a Standing Order No. 9 application which started at 4.34 pm. It is now 4.47 pm, or 13 minutes later. Even with interruptions, many of us will not recollect anyone making such an application being allowed to deploy what is in effect a speech in favour of that application. We should appreciate your guidance on that, Mr. Speaker. The Opposition believe that what we have just heard is a complete abuse of our procedures.
§ Mr. SpeakerI have listened with deep interest to what the right hon. Gentleman said. The truth is that the right hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to a growing custom. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) got very near to making a speech—I acknowledge that—but the House is aware that applications under Standing Order No. 9 have been made, and I have no doubt will be made again, for the purpose of advancing a cause.
§ Mr. Frank AllaunFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. George CunninghamWhy are you so sensitive? What do you not want known?
§ Mr. AllaunThe hon. Gentleman should not interrupt. There is plenty of time—
§ Mr. CunninghamYou do not want to be interrupted, do you, Frank?
§ Mr. AllaunI think—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Interruptions from a sedentary position are unparliamentary. I hope that the House, in its own interests, will allow us to proceed with the other two applications. I do not know what further points of order can be raised, because the matter has been concluded.
§ Mr. AllaunFurther to my point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that you will agree that speeches under Standing Order No. 9 should be confined to showing that the case is urgent and important. You usually confine speeches strictly. On this occasion, 13 minutes were allowed—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I will not sit here and listen to such criticisms. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) was making his case. He took longer than many hon. Members take, but he is not alone in that as we can see if we look at Hansard.
§ Mr. SkinnerOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When you make your decision on an application under Standing Order No. 9—and especially your decision now—
§ Mr. CunninghamThe Labour party has something to hide.
§ Mr. Skinner—can the House assume that one reason—although not the only one—for your decision, Mr. Speaker, is that moneys spent by local authorities are subject to the district auditor? Is not another reason that, on many occasions—including one recently—members of many Labour authorities have visited the House to protest against the Tory Government and the Secretary of State for the Environment? Did they not recently come to the House with the lord mayor, in his robes? They spent public funds on that occasion. However, at that time the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) was a member of the Labour party, elected on a Labour ticket; he has now deserted to the SDP.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe House knows that it has instructed me to give no reason for my decision.