Westminster Council: District Auditor's Report (Hansard, 7 March 1994)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Arran)
My Lords, the conduct of this investigation is in the hands of the District Auditor. It is for him to determine the timing of each stage. The Government have no part to play.

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
My Lords, I note that my noble friend carefully avoids answering the merits of the Question. Is he aware that many of us find it shocking that a public official should be able to publish highly damaging comments on individuals to whom, prior to their publication, he has given no opportunity to answer or deny them? Are the Government so uninterested in 1236 the rights of individuals and in ordinary justice that they are prepared, as my noble friend's Answer suggests, to wash their hands of the matter?

§ The Earl of Arran
My Lords, the Government are always interested in the rights of individuals. In no way do I wish to be unhelpful to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter but I ask him to accept that the auditor is a qualified professional acting within the framework of the law. He has invited those against whom his provisional findings reflect adversely to make written representations to him by 29th July or oral representations by 8th April.

§ Lord Dean of Beswick
My Lords, is the Minister not aware that last week in a supplementary question I made it known that each of the persons involved in this case had been given an opportunity by the auditor to be legally represented at any interview and that only one person had taken advantage of that offer? Bearing in mind reports in the press last week that thousands of documents held by Westminster City Council are being impounded in order to proceed with the case, is it not dangerous for any Member of your Lordships' House or another place to attempt to interfere with an official who is under a statutory obligation, arising from a local government Bill introduced by the right honourable Member for Henley in another place, to deal with cases in which he believes that local government is not being applied as it ought to be? Should we not keep quiet and allow the procedure to take its course?

§ The Earl of Arran
My Lords, we must indeed let the procedure take its course. As I suggested to your Lordships, that is precisely what the District Auditor is attempting to do. At all stages of these particular proceedings it is very important for the Government to remain totally independent and totally impartial.

§ Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone
My Lords, I agree entirely with my noble friend in his last remarks. Recognising that the Question relates to a particular case, is it not a golden rule for all those conducting inquiries that prior to their final report they should avoid the defects which Bacon attributed to the much-talking judge?

§ The Earl of Arran
My Lords, I understand what my noble and learned friend says, but he will understand that in these circumstances the law must take its course and that the District Auditor has a job to do. I am perfectly certain that he will do it with the impartiality that is required of him.

Lord Bruce of Donington
My Lords, in the interests of justice and in particular in the interests of those against whom provisional findings have been made by the District Auditor, will the Government give the House an assurance that under no circumstances will public interest immunity certificates be issued in respect of any correspondence that is required either by the council concerned or by the District Auditor in order to establish whether there is any connection between any information exchanged or opinions given by the Government of the day to the councillors concerned?

§ The Earl of Arran
My Lords, I am not absolutely certain what point the noble Lord makes. I believe that this is the third time that the Government have answered questions on the serious allegations made against some Westminster City councillors. I can do no more than reassure the noble Lord, as I have stressed continually in your Lordships' House, that the law will take its course and that the Government will be totally impartial as to the outcome.

§ Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that when Parliament put the legislation on the statute book it demonstrated a very clear concern to protect the reputations of those who are named? Is my noble friend also aware that Section 30 of the Local Government Finance Act 1982 provides, among other things, that information shall not be disclosed except with the consent of the person to whom the information relates? Although there may be another subsection under which the auditor could be technically right, does my noble friend recognise that the desire to give those named the opportunity to defend themselves was right at the heart of that legislation and that in the Westminster case it seems to have been denied?

§ The Earl of Arran
My Lords, I have made it quite clear that those against whom the allegations are made do, and will, have the right to defend themselves either orally or in written representation. However, I have to say to my noble friend that it was not only your Lordships' House but also another place which passed the Local Government Finance Act 1982.

§ Lord Ennals
My Lords, does the noble Earl accept that there will be concern throughout the House that people who have charges against them should have every opportunity to defend themselves? Does he also accept that if the allegations prove to be true the public are entitled to see that justice is done and he is therefore absolutely right in robustly saying that the law must take its course? My only regret is that the law will not take its course before the electorate votes on 5th May and that therefore there will be no knowledge on 5th May of what action may have been taken.

Noble Lords
Speech !

§ Lord Ennals
I stand by the Minister's reply that he will stand solidly by the law.

Noble Lords
Order!

§ The Earl of Arran
My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord was making a statement rather than asking a question.

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
My Lords, does my noble friend really adopt the attitude that it is appropriate, whatever the words of the statute— my noble friend Lord Jenkin referred to them— that public accusations should be made against a number of people before they have had a chance to respond? If the Government do not accept that that is right, what action do they propose to take?

§ The Earl of Arran
My Lords, I have attempted to outline to my noble friend that the law is the law, and the 1238 law must take its course. If, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has said, the allegations are proven, then of course those involved will be condemned straightaway.

§ Lord Williams of Elvel
My Lords, as the procedure takes its course, will the noble Earl confirm that those concerned will have an opportunity not just to comment on the allegations made but also on the evidence brought forward? For instance, is the noble Earl aware that in a memorandum dated 28th January 1987, paragraph 3 reports that the chairmen's group said that it would take the home ownership proposals forward and, to the extent that it was proper for officers to he involved, Chairmen took the view that the Policy Unit in consultation with the Housing Department should be invited to assist'". Will those involved be able to comment on the expression, to the extent that it was proper for officers to be involved"?

§ The Earl of Arran
My Lords, I believe that the point the noble Lord raises will be taken fully into account at all stages by the District Auditor as he resumes, and continues with, the case.

§ Lord Elton
My Lords, is the concern which underlies your Lordships' interest in this case as follows? The law appears to permit a process in which a person who may be guilty or innocent is assumed to be guilty for such length of time, and with so much conviction in the media and in politics, that the chance of that person being purged by a declaration of innocence at the end of the case does not exist? If that is so, should not the law be changed?

§ The Earl of Arran
My Lords, under British justice a person is innocent until proven guilty.

§ Lord Sefton of Garston
My Lords, will the Minister assure the House that the procedure followed with regard to Westminster City Council has been exactly the same as that followed for other local authorities in similar circumstances? In view of the fact that no one on the Benches opposite saw fit to complain previously about the innate injustice of that system, will he now give a guarantee that he will discourage any attempt to lobby on behalf of Westminster City Council?

§ The Earl of Arran
My Lords, there is no question of lobbying in such a situation. These are grave and serious allegations. There is no question whatever of lobbying. The procedures that pertain in this case will be the same as in all previous cases.