HL Deb 13 June 1994 vol 555 cc1430-3

2.46 p.m.

Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:

In the light of the BBC "Panorama" programme on Monday 16th May relating to allegations of corruption by elected members and officers of Westminster City Council, and the alleged involvement of a succession of Secretaries of State for the Environment in these matters, whether they will consider taking action against these former Ministers, if, following court action, the allegations concerning the councillors and officers are proved.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Arran)

My Lords, the Government do not respond to unsubstantiated allegations made by the media. As I have said to the noble Lord on previous occasions, it would be quite wrong for the Government to be drawn into prejudging the outcome of the auditor's current inquiry.

Lord Dean of Beswick

My Lords, if the Minister saw the programme he will understand the seriousness of the charges that were made. My question is: if the local authority people—the councillors and the officers —are brought before the courts on a charge of corruption, what will be the position of the four former Secretaries of State for the Environment clearly shown in the programme to have aided and abetted these people in their corrupt practices? Can those former Secretaries of State be prosecuted if there is a prima facie case; and if so will it be by the Government themselves through the Attorney-General or will it fall to the responsibility of the electorate in the City of Westminster?

The Earl of Arran

My Lords, I did not see the programme but I have read the transcript carefully. The noble Lord refers to aiding and abetting. These are entirely speculative and hypothetical media allegations. This is the fourth time that this Question has appeared in as many months in your Lordships' House. These are serious and grave allegations. We feel that they should be given proper consideration in the proper form. The Government at all times, as I have made known in your Lordships' House, must remain totally independent and impartial. In the meantime, the law is in the hands of a qualified and able professional. The law must take its course.

The Earl of Lauderdale

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that this Question is based on a flawed assumption; namely, allegations of corruption by an advocate retained by one political party? The opposite political party was not given a hearing.

The Earl of Arrant

My Lords, the circumstances of this case are entirely proper. They are as laid down in the Local Government Finance Act 1982 and they persist at the moment.

Lord Strabolgi

My Lords, as it appears that £7 million was given by the Treasury to Westminster City Council, ostensibly for flood relief—although really in order to keep the poll tax down —and only a small proportion of that sum was used, will the Government co-operate with the Public Accounts Committee when, as I hope, that committee of another place decides to investigate this use of public funds?

The Earl of Arran

My Lords, that is a difficult question. I can assure the noble Lord that the formula for the distribution of central government grants to local authorities was applied objectively to all authorities.

The Earl of Lauderdale

My Lords, is it not the case that that particular flood grant was made to several riverine authorities in about equal measure?

The Earl of Arran

My Lords, that is not going to serve the purpose of the Question on the Order Paper this afternoon.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, my noble friend was asked whether Mr. Attorney would intervene. Is he aware, with due respect, that he is in no position to answer for Mr. Attorney in your Lordships' House? The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I give way to my noble friend's better information and greater knowledge on this matter.

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, the noble Earl referred to media allegations. The noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, referred to someone retained by outside parties. Has the noble Earl read the comment in the transcript—which the Minister says he has read—by Mr. Andrew Arden QC, who is an expert in local authority law? Perhaps I may quote from the transcript. Mr. Arden says: I would describe the picture which has emerged as the greatest act of corruption in the history of local government. Not financial corruption in the conventional sense, but corruption of the machinery of the authority itself, given over to party political gain in a way and to an extent that is absolutely without precedent". He continues: Nothing prepared me for such a naked abuse of power, people and resources. I would have said it was unthinkable". Does the noble Earl agree with Mr. Arden?

The Earl of Arran

My Lords, I cannot and will not be drawn down these particular channels. It is highly improper, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, knows so well. The case rests, and will rest until the outcome is known, in the hands of the District Auditor.

Lord Elton

My Lords, does not the strength of language embodied in the quotation just made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, illustrate the very great importance of seeing that trials in this country are conducted by the courts and not by the media?

The Earl of Arran

Nor by your Lordships' House, my Lords, while the case is under the District Auditor.

Lord Boardman

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is an injustice that persons are named and given much publicity in the media, and unfortunately also through Questions asked in this House, at a time when the evidence against them is not known and they have had no opportunity to answer it?

The Earl of Arran

My Lords, that is a very responsible answer from my noble friend.

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, it may be a responsible answer from the noble Earl; it may also be a responsible question from the noble Lord, Lord Boardman. Can the noble Earl explain to what extent I have been improper in raising the matter?

The Earl of Arran

My Lords, at the moment this matter is entirely in the hands of the District Auditor. I have read the transcript, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has. It is entirely for the District Auditor to do as he thinks appropriate and fit in the circumstances surrounding these individuals.

Lord Richard

My Lords, will the noble Earl reconsider the answer which he gave a moment ago? He made an allegation that my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel had acted improperly in some manner or other. That was the word he used. Will he now withdraw it? If not, will he please say specifically in what manner my noble friend is supposed to have acted improperly?

The Earl of Arran

My Lords, I did not mean improper in that particular sense. I am saying that I do not believe it proper that this case should continue to be conducted in your Lordships' House.

Lord Dean of Beswick

My Lords, in his reply to my supplementary question, the Minister indicated that this is the fourth time that the matter has been raised in your Lordships' House. I have to correct him. This is the first time that the allegations have reached the level of Secretaries of State being involved. That was the main point I raised. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, referred to the fact that the Attorney-General is not in this House and therefore cannot give an opinion. But the Government have a very senior Law Lord in this House—that is to say, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. Perhaps he may like to comment on behalf of the Government; he is the top legal man in this House.

The Earl of Arran

My Lords, I do not believe that I can go further than what I have already said. At the Dispatch Box the Minister speaks on behalf of the Government. I believe that I have given the proper answers as regards the circumstances surrounding this case.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

My Lords, does the noble Earl understand that what he has said causes a great deal of concern to some of us, perhaps extending to all sides of the House? He implied that since the matter is being investigated by the District Auditor it should not be raised in this House. Does that mean that any matter being investigated by the District Auditor should not be raised in this House or perhaps the other place?

The Earl of Arran

My Lords, it is entirely for your Lordships' House to discuss the Question on the Order Paper and to say what is regarded as necessary in your Lordships' House. I was merely making the comment that this is the fourth occasion that the matter has been raised in your Lordships' House. I am not really certain that it helps the circumstances as they exist.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

My Lords—

Noble Lords

Order!

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

My Lords, is there a limit to the number of Questions which may be put down by any person on any subject?

Lord Orr-Ewing

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it is very strictly laid down by the BBC—I have just been reading its producers' guidelines—that in the approach to local elections meticulous care must be taken not to raise matters which are highly political? This is a highly political matter.

The Earl of Arran

My Lords, that is entirely the responsibility of the BBC.

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, as regards the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, is that not precisely why the Government put pressure on the BBC not to broadcast the programme before the local elections?

The Earl of Arran

My Lords, that is total speculation by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. He knows it, and I know it.

Lord Dixon-Smith

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that if this matter were simple and straightfor-ward, as those on the opposite Benches would wish to pretend, by now the District Auditor would have completed his inquiry? The fact that he has not surely indicates the complexity of the issues which are under investigation. I would have thought that a little discretion would have become the Opposition.

The Earl of Arran

My Lords, this is a long and complicated case. The law must take its course.