Homes for votes scandal

From Infogalactic: the planetary knowledge core
Jump to: navigation, search

Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found. The Homes for votes scandal was a political scandal in the United Kingdom which involved the selling off of council housing to potential Conservative voters by Westminster City Council.[1]

Background

The Conservatives were narrowly re-elected to Westminster City Council in the 1986 local council elections, with their majority reduced from 26 to just a majority of 4. The Conservatives in total only held onto control of the council by 106 votes after Labour failed to gain the marginal Cavendish Ward which was needed to give Labour the majority to take control of the council. Following the election and fearing that they would eventually lose control unless there was a permanent change in the social composition of the borough, council leader Shirley Porter instituted a secret policy known as 'Building Stable Communities', focusing on eight marginal wards where the Conservatives wished to gain votes at the 1990 local council elections.[2]

Implementation of the policy

Eight wards were selected as 'key wards' - in public it was claimed that these wards were subject to particular 'stress factors' leading to a decline in the population of Westminster. In reality, secret documents showed that the wards most subject to these stress factors were rather different, and that the eight wards chosen had been the most marginal in the City Council elections of 1986. Three—Bayswater, Maida Vale and Millbank—had been narrowly won by Labour. A further three, St. James's, Victoria and Cavendish had been narrowly won by the Conservatives, in West End ward an Independent had split the two seats with the Conservatives while in Hamilton Terrace the Conservatives were threatened by the SDP.

An important part of this policy was the designation of much of Westminster's council housing for commercial sale, rather than re-letting when the properties became vacant. The designated housing was concentrated in those wards most likely to change hands to Labour in the elections. Much of this designated housing lay vacant for months or even years before it could be sold. To prevent its occupation by squatters or drug dealers, these flats were fitted with security doors provided by the company Sitex at a cost to local tax payers of £50 per week per door.

Other council services were subverted to ensure the re-election of the majority party in the 1990 elections. In services as disparate as street cleaning, pavement repair and environmental improvements, marginal wards were given priority while safely Labour and safely Conservative parts of the city were neglected.

Another vital part of 'Building Stable Communities' was the removal of homeless voters and others who lived in hostels and were perceived less likely to vote Conservative, such as students and nurses, from Westminster. While this initially proved successful, other councils in London and the Home Counties soon became aware of homeless individuals and families from Westminster, many with complex mental health and addiction problems, being dumped in their area.[citation needed]

As Westminster City Council found it more difficult to move homeless people outside Westminster, increasingly the logic of the 'Building Stable Communities' programme required the concentration of homeless people within safe wards in Westminster. In 1989 over 100 homeless families were removed from hostels in marginal wards and placed in the Hermes and Chantry Point tower blocks in the safe Labour ward of Harrow Road.[3] These blocks were "riddled" with asbestos, and should have either been cleaned up or demolished a decade before, but had somehow remained in place due to funding disputes between Westminster City Council and the former Greater London Council.[4] The heating and sanitation systems in many of the flats had been destroyed by the council to deter their use as drug dens and others had pigeons making nests out of exposed asbestos fibres. Some flats had been taken over by heroin users despite the preventative measures.[5]

Investigation

Labour councillors and members of the public referred this policy to John Magill (the Audit Commission's District Auditor) to check on its legality, and as a result it was ordered to be halted in 1989 whilst investigations continued.

In 1990, the Conservatives were re-elected by a landslide victory in Westminster, increasing their majority from 4 to 38. They won all but one of the wards targeted by Building Stable Communities policy.[citation needed] Porter stood down as Leader of the Council in 1991, and served as Lord Mayor of Westminster in 1991-2. She resigned from the council in 1993, and retired to live in Israel with her husband.

On 26 January 1994 Dr. Michael Dutt, joint chairman of Westminster's housing committee between 1988-1990 and one of ten councillors facing the surcharge, was found dead from a self-inflicted gunshot wound in his St Albans home, with papers from the investigation by his side.[7]

Legal action

<templatestyles src="Module:Hatnote/styles.css"></templatestyles>

In May 1996, after much complicated legal investigation work, the District Auditor finally concluded that the 'Building Stable Communities' policy had been illegal, finding Council leader Dame Shirley Porter guilty of "wilful misconduct" and "disgraceful and improper gerrymandering", He ordered Porter, her deputy David Weeks, one other councillor and three council officials "jointly and severally" liable for repaying £36.1m, lost in the attempts to fix the election.[1]

The District Auditor's judgement was upheld by the High Court in 1997 with liability reduced solely to Porter and Weeks. The Court of Appeal overturned the judgement in 1999, but the House of Lords reinstated it in 2001 (see Porter v Magill [2001] UKHL 67, [2002] 2 AC 357[8]). In Israel, Porter transferred substantial parts of her great wealth to other members of her family and into secret trusts in an effort to avoid the charge, and subsequently claimed to have only £300,000 of assets.[9]

On 24 April 2004, the (still Conservative controlled) Westminster City Council and the Audit Commission announced that an agreement had been reached for a payment of £12.3 million in settlement of the debt.[10] The council declared that the cost of legal action would be far greater than the amount to be recovered, while Porter still maintained her innocence. The decision was appealed by Labour members on the Council and the District Auditor began another investigation. The ensuing report, issued on 15 March 2007, accepted the position of the council that further action would not be cost effective.[citation needed] The Auditor further stated that Westminster had recovered substantially all of Dame Shirley's personal wealth and had acted at all times in the best interests of the taxpayers of the City.[citation needed]

The Labour Party in London continued its pursuit of Porter and following the settlement, Porter returned to Westminster to live, buying a £1.5m flat with family money (her husband and son are independently wealthy).[11][12] The former Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, subsequently requested that Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney General, commence an investigation as to whether or not Porter committed perjury or other offences, during the conduct of the 'homes for votes' case.[13]

Reaction from Westminster City Council

After publication of the District Auditor's final report in 2004, the then leader of Westminster City Council, Simon Milton, apologised for the council's past mistakes.[15] Whilst council chief executive Peter Rogers said it "draws a line under the past".[15]

In 2009, then council leader Colin Barrow apologised unreservedly to all those affected by the gerrymandering policy. He criticised Shirley Porter by name for the first time and added that her actions were "the opposite of the council's policies today".[14]

BBC Panorama investigations

The scandal was the subject of two separate "major investigations" by BBC current affairs programme Panorama, broadcast on BBC One on 19 July 1989 and 16 May 1994.[16][17] The second programme was originally scheduled for transmission on 25 April 1994 - ahead of the local elections which took place on 5 May 1994.[18] Conservative Central Office complained to the BBC and the programme was delayed until after the elections. A Conservative party spokesman denied that they were attempting to censor the BBC and said: "We did point out to the BBC that it seemed curious to us that a programme about a particular London borough is put out 10 days before polling day when London only votes once every four years. We understood it looked into a Conservative borough and not any Labour or Liberal Democrat boroughs."[19]

Peter Bradley, the deputy Leader of the Labour opposition on Westminster council, said: "It is extraordinary that the BBC is pulling the programme as a result of pressure from the Conservative party. If there are fresh revelations, the people of Westminster deserve to know about them before they go to the polls."[19] Jack Straw, the Labour party's shadow environment secretary, said: "This decision smacks of great cowardice by the BBC and of improper pressure by... ministers and Conservative Central Office."[18]

Cultural references

In Nov 2009, repeated in Oct 2011, BBC Radio 4 broadcast a radio play—Shirleymander—depicting the principal events of Shirley Porter's time as leader of Westminster City Council in the 1980s.[20]

See also

References

  1. 1.0 1.1 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  2. All facts below are taken from the description of facts as printed in the decision of the Judicial Appealate Committee of the House of Lords of the Westminster Parliament in Porter v Magill [2002] 2 AC 357, and are repeated here under absolute privilege
  3. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  4. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  5. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  6. Magill v. Porter [2001] UKHL 67, [2002 HRLR 16, [2002] 2 AC 357, [2002] BLGR 51, [2001] UKHL 67, [2001] NPC 184, [2002] 2 WLR 37, [2002] 1 All ER 465, [2002] HLR 16] (House of Lords 13 December 2001).
  7. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  8. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  9. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  10. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  11. Evening Standard, 7 August 2006.
  12. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  13. Letter from Mayor Livingstone to Lord Goldsmith, 18 August 2006
  14. 14.0 14.1 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  15. 15.0 15.1 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  16. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  17. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found. (subscription required)
  18. 18.0 18.1 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  19. 19.0 19.1 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  20. Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.

Further reading

  • Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.

External links

  • Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.