§ 4. Mr. RiddickTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will launch an initiative to cut corruption in local government.
§ 7. Mr. BatisteTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about local government corruption; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. HowardI am extremely concerned about recent reports of corruption in local government. I have every 1025 confidence that they will be investigated thoroughly by the Audit Commission and by the police. My officials have today written to Lambeth council in respect of breaches of competition legislation. I shall consider what action to take in the light of its reply.
§ Mr. RiddickNepotism in Monklands, a £10 million fraud in Lambeth, mismanagement in Sheffield, a £40 million fraud in Hackney and yet more probably to come out—yet the same councils for ever demand more money from the Government. Is that not a disgrace? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that grossly incompetent management by Labour authorities is not only ripping off local poll tax payers, but hitting and betraying the poorest people in society who so depend on the services provided by those local authorities?
§ Mr. HowardMy hon. Friend is, as usual, absolutely right. At the very time those practices were rife, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) was telling the Labour party conference:
In Labour Local Government we are the voice and the face of the Labour Party in practice.
§ Mr. BatisteIs not the root cause of the catalogue of scandals described by my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) the fact that in too many Labour councils full-time officers are being undermined by councillors trying to take over the day-to-day running of their departments, thereby undermining the officials and destroying good working practices? Is not meddlesome incompetence the reality of the face of the Labour party in power?
§ Mr. HowardMy hon. Friend makes a typically shrewd and important point—[Interruption.] What he says is entirely accurate. I should have thought that on this one question today we might see some signs of humility in the Labour party instead of the reaction of the past few minutes.
§ Mr. FraserThe Secretary of State will be aware that our interests are those of voters, of tenants and of consumers. First, will he confirm that the allegations in the chief executive's report on Lambeth are not principally against councillors? Secondly, what on earth has the audit service been doing for the past 10 years? It was quick enough to surcharge councillors over political acts. Why on earth has not the audit service, with a growing budget, been able to deal with the matters contained in the chief executive's report? Will the Secretary of State look at the way in which the audit service has considered these matters as well as at the principal issues involved?
§ Mr. HowardI shall look at all relevant aspects of the matter. The hon. Gentleman might have done better to ask what he, as a Member of Parliament for Lambeth, was doing for the past 10 years.
§ Mr. Keith HillWill the Secretary of State accept that my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Ms. Hoey) and I recognise that the initiative that he has taken is inevitable, and that Labour Members will not tolerate fraud and maladministration, wherever and whenever it may occur? Can he ensure that, in all inquiries which may be undertaken, full protection is afforded to the many Lambeth employees who have sought to do an honest day's work for an honest day's pay in difficult circumstances? Does he recognise that the paramount 1026 concern is for firm and fast action by both the Government and the council in co-operation, because both agencies have allowed the matter to persist for far too long?
§ Mr. HowardI welcome the first part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I am sure that the police will give careful consideration when protection is necessary and appropriate. As far as responsibility for such matters is concerned, it was the Labour council of the London borough of Lambeth which got into this mess, and it is that council which must get out of it.
§ Sir Paul BeresfordIn the light of 10 years of allegations and rumours of corruption and incompetence from members all the way down to the lowest workers at Lambeth, and in the light of a recent article about the chief executive of Lambeth saying that he has known of the problems for some three years, will my hon. Friend agree that the review set up by Lambeth council already smacks of a whitewash? In addition, will he agree greatly to strengthen the Audit Commission and to move into councils such as Lambeth to look across the board and from top to bottom, including the elected members?
§ Mr. HowardI would not want to prejudge the outcome of the inquiry which Lambeth council has said that it is setting up. It is certainly of the utmost importance that the Audit Commission should have all the resources that it needs to carry out a proper investigation. I am concerned that no one should be excluded from the remit of that investigation.
§ Mr. CabornDoes the Secretary of State agree that misleading the House through early-day motions, in particular early-day motion 1242, is disgraceful, especially in terms of the allegations against Sheffield which have been raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick)?
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. If I could give the hon. Gentleman a little guidance, the Secretary of State has very little to do with that particular early-day motion. The question should be addressed to the Leader of the House. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) should rephrase his question.
§ Mr. CabornDoes the Secretary of State agree that misleading the House is a serious allegation? On the subject of alleged corruption in Sheffield, the hon. Member for Hallam—one of the Secretary of State's Conservative colleagues—wrote a letter to Sheffield city council on 21 August 1987 asking for accommodation as a Member of Parliament? Would the Secretary of State like to comment on that?
§ Mr. HowardI certainly have a keen interest in, if no responsibility for, the way in which the money of community charge payers in Sheffield is spent. My understanding of the letter to which the hon. Gentleman referred is that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) wrote to the city council asking on what terms accommodation was made available to Members of Parliament.
The hon. Gentleman made allegations of misleading the House with regard to the early-day motion, but he chose not to suggest the extent to which those allegations are misleading. All I can say is that I heard with great dismay the extent to which he and his hon. Friends are prepared to freeload at the expense of charge payers.
§ Mr. James HillIs my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the district auditor in the Southampton area is taking the local Labour-controlled council to court? The council has illegally moved £5.3 million from the housing revenue account to other accounts. I am sorry to inform the House that the chairman of housing at that time was the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), who can probably give my right hon. and learned Friends more facts and figures. Will my right hon. and learned Friend keep an eye on the matter, because there is a smell of corruption in the air?
§ Mr. HowardI am sure that the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) will want to co-operate with the Audit Commission in its investigations to the fullest possible extent.
§ Mr. DenhamIs the Secretary of State aware that the housing committee of Southampton city council, with the unanimous support of Labour, Liberal Democrat and Conservative Members, agreed that transfers should be made between the general revenue account and the housing revenue account to enable the tenants of Southampton to benefit from the 50 per cent. reduction in the limit on capital spending applied to capital receipts, as opposed to the 25 per cent. reduction in the limit on HRA spending? Does he accept that it is appropriate for local authorities to seek to maximise their resources in the interests of local people and that members of his party supported that? Does he further accept that there is no indication as yet that the district auditor will take the city council to court?
§ Mr. HowardI confess to being mildly surprised that the hon. Gentleman made no reference to the importance of acting within the law in making those adjustments to the accounts of the housing committee in Southampton. It may not be of great significance to the hon. Gentleman, but I venture to surmise that it will be of considerable significance to the Audit Commission.
§ Mr. StrawFirst, may I associate myself with the remarks made to the Secretary of State by my hon. Friends the Members for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) and for Streatham (Mr. Hill)? I hope that the Secretary of State will applaud the fact that resolute action by the new Labour group after the expulsion of 13 former Labour councillors led to the investigation and to no action by the district auditor. When will the Secretary of State show some statesmanship and balance on this? Is he not aware that corruption knows no party boundaries, that there have been 22 examples in the past two years of serious allegations of corruption and fraud in central Government involving in total £1,400 million, and that there are endless examples in Enfield, Bromley, West Wiltshire, Rochester upon Medway, Thanet and Westminster of serious corruption in local authorities run by the Conservatives?
On the issue of freeloading—[Interruption.]
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. The House must come to order and hear all the exchanges.
§ Mr. StrawOn the issue of freeloading raised by the Secretary of State, will he condemn the freeloader former members of his Cabinet who have had their hands in the till and their snouts in the trough of privatised industries? 1028 They privatised companies and then sought directorships without any serious distance between them—[Interruption.]
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. The House must come to order. How can I hear what hon. Gentlemen have to say? [Interruption.] Order. I will not be shouted down by hon. Members. The House must come to order.
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. I shall have to use the authority that is given to me by the House if hon. Members will not come to order. I am listening extremely carefully—when I am allowed to—to what the hon. Gentleman has to say. I am sure that he will watch his words carefully.
§ Mr. StrawAs we all understand, Madam Speaker, they do not mind giving it, but they do not like taking it.
Is not there one difference between Labour and Conservative: that while Labour has taken resolute and tough action to deal with corruption, as we have in Liverpool and Lambeth, Conservatives have been extremely reluctant ever to condemn miscreants in their own ranks? For example, 10 months after Westminster was found guilty of acting unlawfully in selling three cemeteries for 15p, its then leader, Lady Porter, ended up with a damehood.
§ Mr. HowardAfter that intervention, I can understand why the hon. Gentleman has taken to spending his time making speeches about the monarchy. It was a disgraceful intervention. His remarks were quite appalling. They were in no way fitting for the Front Bench of the party which was responsible for those councils at the time of those events. May I simply draw to the hon. Gentleman's attention the remarks of the spokesman for the London borough of Lambeth:
We are dealing with potentially unlawful malpractice on a scale unprecedented in local government.The hon. Gentleman would have done well to bear that in mind without seeking to muddy the waters in the pathetic way he did.