POWER OF LOCAL COMMISSIONER TO SEEK COSTS AND DAMAGES (Hansard, 13 June 1989)

§ Mr. Nicholas Bennett
I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The purpose of this new clause is to ensure that if a local authority ignores the findings of the ombudsman where a case of injustice has taken place, the local ombudsman should have the power to institute legal proceedings against the local authority on behalf of the complainant 821 who has suffered injustice, and seek from the court damages and the recovery of any costs involved in both the initial investigation and any subsequent proceedings.
The new clause arises out of an intervention that I made on Second Reading and from subsequent correspondence with the Minister of State concerning the case of Mr. and Mrs. Quinn, constituents of mine who used to own a property in Coventry. When they wanted to sell the lease of a fashion store which they owned there for £37,300, the Coventry city council insisted on buying it for £20,000, although my constituent had a buyer at £17,300 more. Later the council sold the same property for £51,000 and the ombudsman ruled that the city council had been guilty of maladministration and had lost my constituents £17,300. Two ombudsman reports found the city council guilty, yet it refused to act. Its leader, Mr. Jim Cunningham, said that although the Minister had said that he might have to change the law to force recalcitrant councils to abide by the rulings of ombudsmen, it would not alter its decision. I understand that the Government have taken no subsequent action.
I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to a leading article in the Coventry Evening Press, which said that the council had been found guilty for a second time of a spivish piece of sharp practice … By cocking another snook at the Ombudsman's findings the council has shown itself markedly unfit to criticise the worst excesses of private enterprise sanctioned under the Thatcherism it claims to despise. I do not agree with that last comment, but if local authorities continue to ignore the findings of the ombudsman he should be given teeth. My new clause would give him the right to bite councils if they cocked a snook.

§ Mr. Wallace
In general I endorse the aims of the new clause. For local councils wilfully to ignore the recommendations of the ombudsman is a denial of justice, especially for the individual. There should be some authority to enforce a judgment for damages.
I part company with the new clause in that it seeks an award of costs against the local authority for the initial investigation and subsequent proceedings. I would not object to an award of costs incurred by the complainant, but if I were a poll tax payer in a local authority that had been found guilty of maladministration I would think it very rich indeed if I had to cough up for what was essentially a transfer between two public bodies. To seek the award of such costs would be unfair to the poll taxpayers, but for individual rights—

§ Mr. Nicholas Bennett
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the generality of taxpayers should not have to pay for the refusal of a particular local authority? If anyone has to pay, it should be the poll tax payers in that local authority, who could then make judgment on that local authority at the next election.

§ Mr. Wallace
It is a transfer from one public body to another. It would bear much more heavily on individual poll tax payers in a local authority than it would if it were paid for through the generality of taxation. Nevertheless, the extent to which the new clause asserts the importance of individual rights encourages me to vote in favour of it.

§ Mr. Soley
I do not think that the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) has any intention of pressing his new clause to a Division, and so he has again misled his 822 constituent. If he did press it to a Division, he would not only have to vote against his own Government but he would have to consider the possibility of imposing exactly the same conditions for the Government ombudsman. If he did that to his party he would be pulled down to see the Whips, who would box his ears and tell him not to be so silly in future. That is what the Conservative party does to hon. Members who stray from the party line.
There is a case for saying that the views of the ombudsman must seriously be taken into account, and in almost all cases they are. The important point is that the courts exist to be used properly and the electorate is the final judge. If the Government or any Conservative Member were serious about the new clause, they would insist on it applying to the Government ombudsman. There would then be arguments about whether the taxpayers should pay for that.
There is another problem for Conservative Members who support the new clause. One day there might need to be an ombudsman to redress some of the grievances in the private sector, and perhaps—just perhaps—some of those Members would have to pay for that.

§ Mr. Gummer
I am not sure that the House will feel that that last intervention served much purpose except to divert attention from the seriousness of the case which my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) has raised. I am unhappy when a local authority refuses to accept the impartial decision of the ombudsman. It is just as wrong if it is a Conservative authority as it is if it is a Labour authority. That is why in the next few days I am taking action to bring home to a Conservative council near Coventry a similar circumstance. It was not as serious in terms of money and perhaps more excusable in terms of the decision, but it was still a refusal to accept the independent adjudication of the ombudsman.
11 pm
The case that my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke raises is one which I think nobody but the purblind supporters of a particular circumstance could possibly defend. There is no doubt that Coventry owes this couple £17,500. On two occasions that has been the adjudication. I do not believe that my hon. Friend expressed the case with his usual sharpness because he missed out the important aspect. The local authority sold the property, which it had insisted upon buying, at a price £17,500 less than had been negotiated, to the very people with whom the sale had been negotiated. Therefore, what happened was that my hon. Friend's constituent arranged a sale for his wool shop at £17,500 more than the local authority paid him, only to find that the local authority sold that shop on to the very people to whom it had agreed to sell in the first place. In other words, the matter was clear and significant. It is not surprising, therefore, that the Coventry city council stands condemned by the ombudsman, condemned by its own local paper and I think condemned by any right-thinking person. I am sorry that it has taken that step, because Coventry is a great city which does not deserve such a decision.
I must ask what would happen if I either supported the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke or if I were to find another way of making the decisions of the ombudsman enforceable by law. A large number of authorities are accustomed to solving such problems during the discussions. Labour, Liberal and Conservative 823 authorities often realise, part the way through discussions, that on balance they should have made a different decision or dealt with the problem in a different way. Perhaps they still maintain that they were right, but to gain the support of the community they feel that they should handle the matter differently. That happens so often and to such great effect in hon. Members' constituencies, and is for the benefit of their constituencies, that I am loath to move towards the proposals in the new clause. Every time that the local government ombudsman started his discussions he was met with a very legalistic response because the local authority would know that it might end up being forced by law to do something. That is the real issue.

§ Mr. Soley
The Minister has come round to the point that I suggested he would—it is a nonsense suggestion. His earlier comments, incidentally, were largely creative literature about Coventry, as any reading of the debate in Committee will tell him, but will he bear in mind that his party's councillors supported the Coventry council in Committee?

§ Mr. Gummer
The hon. Gentleman has already perpetrated that inaccurate statement and he must withdraw it. It was Conservative councillors who brought the issue before the general council, otherwise the council would not have discussed it. The council divided and the Conservatives voted against the decision of the council. The hon. Gentleman is not right and he must not repeat statements that are wrong. He has done it before and he has been shown to be wrong.

§ Mr. Soley
Is the Minister denying that the Conservative councillors on the committee that dealt with the issue—remember they were the ones who went into detail—approved?

§ Mr. Gummer
The Conservative party on the council insisted that the matter be brought before the general council when they voted against the council. It is no good trying to ignore what happened. Even if the Conservatives had supported it lock, stock and barrel it was wrong and it should not have happened. Similarly an action by Hinckley and Bosworth, next door to that council, is wrong and should not have happened. That council should also accept what the ombudsman has said.
I hope that the House will note that, throughout this discussion, I have been willing to criticise Conservative as well as Labour councils, but that Opposition Members, as usual, have a partial view of the truth. The Coventry council, whatever party may run it, should not have disobeyed the proposition of the ombudsman. It cheated a small business man of £17,500. It has been found to have cheated on two separate occasions and I am sorry that the citizens of that city have been presented to the outside world in such a manner.

§ Mr. Nicholas Bennett
Leaving aside the smart Alick remarks of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), who is not interested in the case of individual people who have received such treatment, in future will the Department of the Environment—

§ Mr. O'Brien
This is a charade.

§ Mr. Bennett
Will the Department consider the progress of ombudsman cases? If the ombudsman's findings are ignored in a succession of cases, will the Department come back to this matter?

§ Mr. Gummer
First, I want to answer the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) who spoke about a charade. Before the hon. Gentleman shouts out what he does not understand, he should know that I have spent a great deal of time trying to find a way to make Coventry and other councils accept the law. I have found that there is an easy way to do that, but that that carries a disadvantage that is greater than the advantage. If Opposition Members think that this is a charade, they do not appreciate how seriously we judge when someone is cheated out of money by a public authority. What is even more serious is that an hon. Member of this House should say that such action was wrong. Does the hon. Member for Normanton think that it was wrong for the council to deny the ombudsman's report?

§ Mr. O'Brien
The charade refers to the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) who has no intention of pressing the new clause—we knew that from the start. He is being unfair to his constituents and his actions constitute a charade.

§ Mr. Gummer
I repeat the question—was it wrong to cheat that family of £17,500?

§ Mr. Soley
rose—

§ Mr. Gummer
I want the hon. Member for Normanton to tell me whether the council was wrong.

§ Mr. O'Brien
This is a night of charades.

§ Mr. Gummer
Once again the hon. Gentleman refuses to say that he believes that the council was wrong.

§ Mr. Soley
rose—

§ Mr. Gummer
No, I shall not give way as the hon. Gentleman has had every opportunity to make his case.
The House can make a distinction between those on the Conservative Benches who have publicly admitted that the actions of a Conservative council were wrong—as well as those of a Labour council—and the actions of Opposition Members who, when challenged to say whether it was right to cheat someone of £17,500, were not prepared to admit it.
I am sorry that I cannot support my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke, but I believe that there are good reasons for not doing so.

§ Mr. Nicholas Bennett
I have listened with care to the arguments put forward by my right hon. Friend. I am satisfied that he has put forward strong objections to this new clause and I beg to ask leave to withdraw it. However, I will keep an eye on the situation and if this matter and other matters like it are not resolved I will bring the issue back on a future occasion.