HC Deb 11 February 1985 vol 73 cc19-21 3.34 pm
Dr. John Cunningham(by private notice) (Copeland)

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about meetings and other contacts between his Department and Councillor Salinger or other councillors of Haringey borough council and the disclosure to Councillor Salinger of the Secretary of State's assumptions under the Rates Act about the finances of the borough council.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Patrick Jenkin)

There has been no impropriety. The Guardian headlines are flatly wrong in suggesting either that Councillor Salinger has been given information refused to Councils or that I misled the House.

The majority parties in the rate-limited authorities are refusing to negotiate with the Government about their rate limits. I have made it absolutely clear that in those circumstances I am prepared—indeed, legally bound—to take account of information from elsewhere, including of course from elected councillors, of whatever party. It was in that context that one of my officials telephoned Councillor Salinger on 5 February because he understood that Councillor Salinger might have relevant factual information to provide. In Haringey's case I have not needed to make any assumptions, as all the figures required to calculate its rate limit have been supplied to me at various times by the council itself. The suggestion that I have privately revealed assumptions made in calculating Haringey's rate limit is, therefore, entirely false.

There have been meetings between Ministers or their special advisers and Conservative Members of Haringey council. One of the meetings was attended by officials, who, in accordance with the normal conventions of such meetings, recorded factual information and commented on its technical relevance.

Dr. Cunningham

The Secretary of State's statement is singularly unconvincing. Will he confirm that Councillor Salinger has confirmed that there were discussions with officials of the right hon. Gentleman's Department about the assumptions and has clearly stated that the assumptions were given to him at an open meeting of the borough council?

Did not the Secretary of State tell the House as recently as last Wednesday that there had been no contact between his Department and Conservative councillors on the borough council? That is on the record. Why has the Secretary of State not taken this opportunity to put the record straight and to be candid with the House about his dealings with minority group councillors in an attempt to bypass the decisions of the ballot box at Haringey?

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm the figures given in The Guardian and in the letter of the chief accountant of Haringey borough council?

Mr. Speaker

Order. This is a question, not a statement.

Dr. Cunningham

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that in exercising his discretion in this matter he has capriciously withheld £6.4 million from Haringey borough council? Does not the whole sorry affair demonstrate the fact that the punitive centralizing legislation is a mess, and that fixing the budgets of councils, is no business of the House or of the right hon. Gentleman's Department?

Mr. Jenkin

The hon. Gentleman continues to make a very bad case. He should accept that I have made no assumptions whatever in relation to Haringey. The council gave me all the figures necessary to enable me to calculate its rate limit. The accusation made in the House last week was that I told Conservative members of Haringey council of assumptions made in calculating the Haringey limit.

Dr. Cunningham

The right hon. Gentleman's Department told them.

Mr. Jenkin

No. What I said in the House was absolutely correct. Indeed, I went on to say that had there been any meeting with officials at which such assumptions had been disclosed—

Dr. Cunningham

They have been.

Mr. Jenkin

No, they have not. I have made no assumptions in relation to Haringey. In suggesting that if an elected councillor chooses to contact a Government Department that is bypassing the ballot box, the hon. Gentleman is carrying the argument to absurd lengths.

We all know what the hon. Gentleman is up to. It is spelt out in The Guardian. The hon. Gentleman and the councils which he supports are trying to demonstrate that the assumptions are unreasonable, so that I can be beaten in the courts and the whole rate-capping policy reduced to tatters. That is what he says, that is what he is after and that is what this is all about.

Sir Hugh Rossi (Hornsey and Wood Green)

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Haringey is one of the most extravagant and profligate local authorities in the United Kingdom, with expenditure running at 34 per cent. above GRE; that for the past 12 years both Labour and Conservative Secretaries of States alike have drawn attention to the council's spending policy but that it has refused to heed any of them; and that currently it is more concerned with an expensive advertising campaign and confrontation with the Government — with the encouragement of the Opposition Front Bench—than with trying to bring about economies in expenditure? Is he also aware that my constituents and ratepayers will welcome and endorse anything that he does to reduce the intolerable burden at present upon them?

Mr. Jenkin

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If I may say so, this is all a very sad falling away from the days when he and I served on Hornsey borough council, Haringey's predessor.

Mr. Norman Atkinson (Tottenham)

Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that the speech that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) is precisely the same as his remarks to justify his call to the Haringey authority to dismiss some 2,200 of its workers from service? The hon. Gentleman stands condemned for demanding that of the local authority.

Is it not the explanation for all these revelations much more politically sinister than the Secretary of State makes out? Has not the right hon. Gentleman indeed made a number of assumptions? He quoted the figure of £6.4 million, which was one of his assumptions and which appears in the correspondence. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman is condemned by his own correspondence with the local authority.

Is not this part of a political strategy? The Secretary of State knows that all the rate-capped authorities have agreed to act in unison. The right hon. Gentleman wanted Haringey to come to see him personally and he would then have conceded the £6.4 million, thereby making it beneficial for those authorities to come to see him, and as a result breaking the unity—

Mr. Speaker

Order. We cannot have speeches during questions on a statement. The hon. Gentleman must bring his question to a close, because he has now been on his feet for several minutes.

Mr. Atkinson

Is not a political strategy the purpose of these "behind the scenes" discussions with friends of the right hon. Gentleman's own family whom he has known for many years? Was it not from out-of-hours discussions that these revelations emerged?

Mr. Jenkin

The hon. Gentleman knows that the leader of Haringey council, Councillor Meehan, has consistently argued that he ought to be free to talk to the Department about the rate limit, but that because of this stupid boycott imposed by Labour's national executive committee he has been precluded from doing so. There is still time, and if Councillor Meehan wishes to argue for a higher rate limit, my door is open.

Mr. John Cartwright (Woolwich)

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm the statement apparently issued by his Department on Friday that the deputy treasurer of Haringey telephoned his Department and had certain calculations confirmed? Will he make a similar service available to the other rate-capped authorities? More important, will he make available to the House details of the assumptions which he has used so that we do not have a repetition of last week, when the House was asked to rubber stamp rate limits without adequate information?

Mr. Jenkin

I have made it clear that in relation to Haringey there were no assumptions. If any authority wishes to discuss the calculation of its rate limit, it is absolutely clear under the Act that it should use the right of appeal to come in and put forward an alternative rate limit. These matters may then be discussed. The deputy treasurer of Haringey did have a consultation, and, as I have said frequently, skilled treasurers are perfectly well able to work out how their authority's rate limit has been calculated. Haringey got the relevant calculations right within two days of the announcement last December.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. Private notice questions are an extension of Question Time. We have a heavy day ahead of us, with Private Members' motions.