§ Mr. Jack Straw (Blackburn)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. My point of order, of which I have given you and the Secretary of State notice, concerns the availability to Members of the House of the district auditor's report on the designated sales policy of Westminster city council, which was due for publication tomorrow.
The inquiry has been going on for more than four years and directly involves two Members of the House—my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) as an objector, and the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg) as a respondent. Every other right hon. and hon. Member of the House has an interest in the outcome of what, on any basis, has been one of the most major inquiries ever into alleged unlawful spending by councillors.
It was always understood by the objectors and by Westminster city council, if not by the respondents themselves, that, at the end of this stage of the inquiry, two things would happen. First, it was understood that all primary evidence—transcripts, documents and so on— would be made available to the parties but, if further proceedings to surcharge were to take place, not to the public.
But, secondly, it was understood that the district auditor would make available in the public domain his report based upon that evidence—the so-called "Note of provisional findings", which runs to more than 500 pages. That was exactly what happened, and rightly, when the district auditor reported into Lambeth and Liverpool in 1985.
But last night we learned that that report will not now be made available to Members of the House, or generally to the public. All that we and the public will get tomorrow is a five-page summary. It is as if a judge of the High Court, after a four-year action, said, "This is what I have decided, but I am not telling the public why nor what weight I have given to the evidence."
My understanding is that that step has been taken by the auditor as a consequence of what can only be described as constant bullying by lawyers acting for one of the respondents, Dame Shirley Porter. But the decision not to publish will place the House in a most extraordinary position.
The report is a matter of great public interest. What if the two hon. Members, who are parties and who will receive the report, wish to quote from it in the House? Will they then be able to quote from it but none of the rest of us be allowed to ask questions upon it? In any event, since copies will be issued to the parties, it is almost certain that further unofficial copies will be made and then passed round, rather as dog-eared copies of "Lady Chatterley's Lover" were in the days before the law was changed.
Semi-secret justice is no justice at all. It is surely wholly wrong for there to be one rule when publication of an auditor's report concerns ordinary councillors in Lambeth and Liverpool and another rule when it concerns the well-connected and the very rich.
There is a way in which such a low and terrible farce can be avoided, and that is for the Secretary of State to use his reserve powers under the Local Government Finance Act 1982 in relation to the Audit Commission, and to ask the House to make a return so that the auditor's report becomes 192 a parliamentary paper to which parliamentary privilege would then attach. Therefore, I ask you, Madam Speaker, as the guardian of the rights of the House, to ensure that that is done, and I ask, through you, for the Minister now to make a statement about this.
§ The Minister for Local Government and Planning (Mr. David Curry)Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) for his prior notification of his intention to raise the point of order.
My initial reaction is that the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the Secretary of State's power under the Local Government Finance Act 1982. My understanding is that the Secretary of State can direct the Audit Commission to provide documents and information, but not the auditor. There might well be a real problem if Ministers could be seen to be putting auditors under pressure in that way.
However, I am pursuing detailed legal advice, and as soon as I receive it I shall write to the hon. Gentleman, and I shall place a copy of that letter in the Library of the House.
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. The point of order was to me.
There have been some interesting exchanges, and the House is well aware of the situation. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) for giving me notice of his point of order. Although it is open to right hon. and hon. Members to table motions calling for documents to be laid before the House, in a case such as that which the hon. Gentleman has in mind, the motion would not constitute a motion for an unopposed return—as described on page 281 of "Erskine May".
Such a motion, therefore, would not enjoy any precedence over other motions, and it would have to be placed among early-day motions or the remaining orders of the day. Whether the Secretary of State chooses to table such a motion is a matter for him. As the hon. Gentleman has made clear, the papers in question are not in the Government's possession. We must leave it at that, with the Minister's response to the point of order.
§ Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)On a different aspect of the same point of order, Madam Speaker.
§ Mr. StrawI thank you, Madam Speaker, and the Minister for those replies. I want to make it clear that there has never been any question about the independence of the Audit Commission or of the district auditor. I do not believe that the district auditor's independence would in any sense be called into question by the Secretary of State asking the House to make a return for the papers. In fact, the district auditor's independence would be greatly strengthened if such a return were made.
§ Mr. Winnickrose—
§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. The matter has been dealt with; we cannot go on debating it. The Minister has replied, and we should leave it at that for the time being.
§ Mr. Skinnerrose—
§ Madam SpeakerIs it a different point of order?
§ Mr. SkinnerYes.
§ Madam SpeakerVery well.
§ Mr. SkinnerBetween 1972 and 1974, when Clay Cross councillors were surcharged under district auditor reports made before 1982, the matter was placed in the public domain, and everybody knew everything about it. In fact, Members of Parliament representing towns and cities other than Clay Cross throughout the country, including Scotland, were involved. The Minister said, however, that since 1982 a clear distinction has been made as a result of the Local Government Finance Act 1982. It is hard to believe that the Government do not have the power to do in respect of Westminster as they did in the cases of Lambeth and Liverpool, which both arose after 1982. Is that because Westminster is Tory controlled and is close to the Tory Government?
§ Madam SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman knows that legal advice is not given by the occupant of the Chair.
§ Mr. Winnickrose—
§ Madam SpeakerIs it the same point of order?
§ Mr. WinnickIt is on a different aspect.
§ Madam SpeakerI do not think that we need a point of order on another aspect. We are dealing with points of order—this is not a debate.
§ Mr. WinnickMy point of order concerns the rights of Members of Parliament. If there is legal pressure on the district auditor—as I understand is the position—not to publish a 700-page report on what happened in Westminster city council, right hon. and hon. Members will not be able to read it. Why should not right hon. and hon. Members be able to study the report when that is essential for their understanding of events?
§ Madam SpeakerI cannot listen to allegations about legal pressure. The Speaker is not in a position to give legal advice. The House heard the Minister's comments, and right hon. and hon. Members must leave it there.