What a Wapping mistake!

REPORT: John James and Kelvin Ross

ALMOST all of Waltham Forest's Labour councillors have been found guilty of "wilful misconduct" over a decision they took three years ago during the Wapping dispute.

In 1986 at the height of the dispute, the council took a decision to ban advertising in the Times Educational Supplement, and also take News International publications off local library shelves.

Now the 29 members of the borough's ruling party involved in that decision have come under fire in the preliminary finding of District Auditor Peter Heppleston, who looked into the banning at a week-long inquiry last year.

But these 29, including the leader and deputy council leader, will not be banned from public office as they feared they might be if the inquiry went against them.

In a 48-page judgement, the auditor concludes the decision taken by the councillors in June, 1986, was "unlawful" from its inception.

But he added the members were only guilty of wilful misconduct from December 1986, when they knew their motion was illegal after Ealing Council, which was also employing the library ban, was found to be acting illegally.

The ban was finally lifted in February, 1987.after a threat of legal action against the council by local barrister and Liberal Democrat Peter Leighton.

Legal action threat

And the auditor found, in spite of heavily increased advertising costs incurred by the council during that period, the only "loss" provoked by their misconduct was £250, for taking legal advice when they had already received a solicitor's guidance.

He has given the councillors until March 30th to make representations as to why they should not be surcharged for this amount, which would work out to less than £10 each.

And as this is less than £2,000, the councillors are not liable to be disqualified.

'Great moral victory'

Mr Leighton said: "The ratepayers of the borough have won a great moral victory by demonstrating to the District Auditor that the councillors were guilty of wilful misconduct -- the most serious finding that can be made against a locally elected representative.

"What is galling is that we have established a wrong, but have been denied an effective remedy.

"I find it quite incredible that where a council has to pay twice as much for the same advertising space in a publication that reaches fewer teachers, and exceed its advertising budget in one year by over £300, 000 in the process, the auditor can find there is no loss to the rate fund, and the councillors avoid the disqualification they richly deserve.

"We will have to consider whether this decision can be appealed."

Council leader Neil Gerrard said: "I am not unhappy with what has come out of this.

"We were not admitting, and still don't admit, that we did anything illegal. But looking at it in retrospect, we would have to accept that some of the decisions made were illegal.

He said of the surcharge on councillors: "The amount of money is absolutely miniscule. It's purely legal costs."

And he stressed: "This is not the auditor's final decision. He will make a final decision once he has heard what we have to say about it."

The council has until March 30 to decide whether it accepts the decision or not.

Waltham Forest Council will also foot the bill for last year's hearing, as well as paying £6,500 for its own legal costs.