Local Government (Hansard, 17 March 1994)

§ Mr. David Shaw (Dover)
Local government in this country is operating on a scale probably never envisaged when it first took on its present structure, and when the legislation that determined that structure was brought into being. It now costs about £80 billion in capital and revenue terms each year. That is an enormous sum, and the council tax that we all pay covers only about 10 per cent. of that £80 billion. The Government and business pay 90 per cent. of it.
If we include teachers, there are about 2 million employees of local councils throughout the United Kingdom—that is, nearly 50 per cent. of all workers in the public sector. That is a vast number of employees, and the total cost is considerable. It is therefore important that we should always try to raise standards in local authorities, as we should try to do everywhere in the public sector. It is important that value for money be set as an objective, and strong efforts be made to achieve it. We must always strive for the utmost efficiency, the highest levels of effectiveness and the highest attainable quality of service from our local authorities.
Sadly, that is not always the case. In recent years we have seen much abuse involving the way in which local authorities are run. The fact has recently been published that the debt of many Labour councils now exceeds that of many third world countries, and the 13 Labour councils with the largest debts all have debts of more than £500 million.
Manchester tops the list with a debt of £1,326 million. Then there is Birmingham, with a debt of £1,233 million, Islington, with £946 million, Lambeth, with £878 million, Southwark, with £856 million, Liverpool, with £765 million, Hackney, with £757 million, Camden, with £743 million, Leeds, with £737 million, Sheffield, with £730 million, Haringey, with £549 million, and Newham, with £547 million. Lewisham, 13th in the list, has a debt of £506 million.
Many people will wonder who is to repay this debt. Many people will also wonder whether they will be told the truth in the coming council elections. Will they really know who they are voting for? Are these figures widely available? Are they understood by the electorate? Does the electorate even know about them? I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will bear in mind that the figures ought to be publicised in the national interest so that taxpayers and council tax payers throughout the country can see which councils have the largest debt and be made aware of the figures that I have mentioned.
The cost of servicing the debt ought to be recognised and understood more widely. Not only are there Labour councils in the top 13 councils for debt but also those top 13 Labour councils must raise some £600 million a year in taxation just to pay the interest charges on the debt. It is a phenomenal amount of money, equivalent to nearly 10 per cent. of the total council tax raised.
What emerges from all this is that Conservative councils have a much better record. In many cases, they are role models for the rest to follow. In my own constituency we had a Conservative council for many years, and although at present a Lib-Lab pact rules the council, it is worth looking at what a number of years of Conservative rule have brought to Dover. Dover has a debt of only £34 1174 million after many years of Conservative control. It manages, with just 500 employees, to provide an excellent service to its residents. It has also had a report just published by the audit service that is one of the best that I have ever seen.
The housing department in Dover—a particular interest of mine and one that I shall return to later—earned the following accolade from the auditor: My review of the council's housing strategy was based on a national study by the Audit Commission which identified a number of good practices against which authorities could be compared. We found that the council in Dover is performing well in many respects and has adopted a variety of methods for addressing housing needs. The report went on to say: The process for allocating council houses via the waiting list works well. The housing department received a well-earned credit from the audit service. Judging from the correspondence that I have about housing matters in Dover, it does very well indeed.
The community charge benefit system and the housing benefit system operated by the finance department in Dover also earned plus points in the audit report, which said: Our review showed that the council had already introduced many of the elements of good practice identified by the Audit Commission. The report went on to say that the council's workload has increased by some 9 per cent. in the three years to 1992–93, while at the same time the number of staff employed in the benefits section has decreased. As a result, the workload per person is above the Kent average and the cost of the council's service compares favourably with other Kent authorities. By definition, it must compare favourably with that of other authorities in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Dover's senior officers have been on performance-related pay, something that the Government have encouraged, for some six years. The staff of Dover district council have been on performance-related pay for some three years. They are performing and delivering a better service for my constituents. Dover district council is a well-run Conservative council.
Another council that earns the accolade of being a well-run Conservative council is Redbridge. I was impressed by the speed with which Redbridge council noted that I had a debate today on local government and immediately sent me a fax with some statistics about how efficient it is. There is no doubt that Redbridge council must come high on the list of successful Conservative councils. I was impressed with the facts and the details that it sent me.
I know that my hon. Friend the Minister, who has kindly come along to reply to the debate, will be delighted by what he, I hope, saw in the Evening Standard last night—or should I say tonight? Brent council, formerly under Labour control, has announced its council tax for the next year. It has announced that for the fourth year in a row it will reduce its council tax. That is what Conservative councils mean—four years of reducing the council tax below the level set by Labour. That is a major achievement and a great improvement.
We compare that news with the sad news yesterday from Islington council. It is £878 million in debt and the child care division of its social services department has collapsed. In the newspaper tonight we discovered that there had been 14 years of failure and neglect in the child care division of the social services department. We also discovered that the council attempted to hide the report that 1175 would have disclosed the problem. The council is £878 million in debt and it still cannot finance, structure and make work a proper social services department.
Lewisham council is of particular interest in Dover at present because the leader of the council was brought down to Dover by the Labour group to teach Dover Labour party how to run a council. Lewisham council is not a good example, and we in Dover certainly do not want to have what goes on in Lewisham down in Dover. I understand that Lewisham council attempted to ban Christmas. It did not consult the Pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury. It just decided that a Christmas party was the wrong sort of party because it identified with religion, so it changed the name to a winter party. Lewisham council has also failed to collect £25 million in rent, rate and council tax arrears. That is an appalling state of affairs. We in Dover certainly do not want Lewisham to teach us anything.
In Tameside the position is even worse. The council has set up a company to look after the elderly. The company did not so much look after the elderly as look after Labour party supporters. A number of shares in that company are apparently owned by the local Labour party through the nominee of its chairman. That is an appalling state of affairs and a scandal in which much money has been lost. The BBC has carried out an in-depth investigation and discovered much wrongdoing. Local newspapers have written articles of many column inches identifying corruption, fraud and wasteful expenditure.
Another council also identifies badly from Labour's point of view. ft is Monklands council, where the Leader of the Opposition has his base. It has a debt of more than £130 million. It has more than 1,400 employees. It is one of the most inefficient, nepotistic and corrupt councils in the country. It has the sixth highest council tax in Scotland. The audit report by its auditor is completely the opposite to the one I have just read out about Dover. The Monklands audit report, just released, announces that the council is operating at the limits of its financial capacity. The evidence of wrongdoing in Monklands does not come from Conservative politicians—apart from the fact that I have got hold of many papers and have started to bring Monklands council into the public arena.

§ Mr. Michael Connarty (Falkirk, East)
As someone who was born in Monklands and has a record in local government, I understand the audit reports very well. Would the hon. Gentleman like to alter his statement in the light of the fact that the auditor said that Monklands council had not been at all compromised in its report? No qualification was entered by the auditor in this year's, or any other year's, audit report.

§ Mr. Shaw
The hon. Gentleman's comments on the audit report that has been issued may change as he listens to what I have to say. He may change his view when he hears about the police who are currently investigating something that happened only a week after the audit report was concluded. He may change his view when he hears about some of the fraud and fiddles that I shall identify in the remainder of my speech.
I want to give some of the evidence and quote Catherine Miller, the branch secretary of the Holehills and Raywards branch of the Labour party. In 1992 she said: This branch … unreservedly condemns the nature of Cllr Brooks's highly personalised and derogatory statements, believing these are grossly insulting to the four councillors and deliberately designed to divert attention away from the main 1176 issues that have been raised. The four councillors to whom she referred are four Labour councillors who have attempted to identify and expose the corruption and wrongdoing. Councillor Brooks is the Labour leader of the council that the Leader of the Opposition has supported for a position on a local health board at a salary of £5,000 a year. Fortunately, the Government had the good sense not to appoint Councillor Brooks.
An anonymous spokesman for the Plains and Caldercruix branch of the Labour party wrote to the local newspaper, saying: In addition to other branches within the local Labour Party, Plains and Caldercruix also calls for a full, detailed investigation by the National Executive into the way in which the 'inner circle' of the Labour Group run the affairs of this local authority. Such entrenchment of power in so few hands is bad for local democracy. It also called upon the national executive of the Labour party to investigate fully the present dictatorial set up of council committees and subcommittees. A democratisation process is called for so that the council fully represents the entire electorate. There are real worries in the local Labour party in Monklands about the democracy, or lack of it, that exists there.
Mr. P. Drummond, the branch secretary of Gartlea branch of the Labour party, wrote that Councillor Brady"— a Labour rebel councilor— as far as we are concerned can hold his head up. He has no relatives employed by the council, has never sought to get friends into such posts, does not use crude language in public pronouncements, is a relatively low claimant of expenses and an infrequent attender at available buffets and junkets. It seems that that is a model by which some people in the Labour party locally measure the other people in the Labour party, and many people in the Labour party do not fit that model.
James Turner, branch secretary of the Rochsoles and Glenmavis branch in Airdrie, wrote: If left as it is, this situation will only deteriorate. The subject of 'Democracy à la Monklands' is surely questionable at best: divisions in the Labour Party here grow even wider. Labour councillors are also concerned. Councillor Murphy, a regional councillor for Coatbridge, North and Glenboig, and a shop steward in the National Union of Public Employees, stated: I have got good proof about jobs not being advertised … employees who are members of the Labour Party have been given temporary promotion and the jobs 'get lost in the system."' Councillor Morgan, a Labour councillor, said: I know of cases where candidates have been selected for jobs without even the bare minimum qualifications required." That was reported in The Herald of Glasgow on 21 May 1993.
The Labour party was so worried that it was forced to hold an inquiry into the way in which the council was operated. Unfortunately, that inquiry has ended up as a cover-up. The Leader of the Opposition has never answered questions about it, even though it led to the suspension of his constituency Labour party. Nevertheless, the Scottish Labour party had to admit in its report: Involvement of Councillors in the appointment procedures … was a practice which has left the Labour Group open to criticism. That is fairly mild language, but it is fairly serious when one realises what has gone on in that council.
Public records are also now established about the wrongdoing. A recent ombudsman's report recorded maladministration. I give as an example the ombudsman's report in August 1993, on the son of Councillor Gilson 1177 —Councillor Gilson being a leading Monklands councilor—being allowed to buy his council house when neighbours in similar houses were not allowed to buy theirs. The ombudsman said: My investigation of how this application was processed has been hampered because the authority have been unable to provide my investigating officer with information which might have revealed the reasons for the apparent inconsistency. Earlier we heard about Islington council trying to keep secret a report on child care. Now we find that Monklands council managed to keep secret the way in which Councillor Gilson's son bought his council house for himself whereas other residents could not buy theirs.
The decision-making process on Monklands council is determined by who controls the local Labour party. In Monklands, control rests firmly with the small group known as the local Labour mafia. In Monklands, East, the Leader of the Opposition's constituency, the Labour party is bankrupt and in debt to the tune of £2,500. It is devoid of active members. Only about 100 people are active in the local Labour party.

§ Mr. Connarty
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have put up with this drivel for so long. Has this peroration on some local Labour party branch or constituency any relevance to the debate that the hon. Member is supposed to be speaking to?

§ Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes)
The hon. Member chose local government as a subject and what he is saying is clearly connected with local government.

§ Mr. Shaw
I am trying to show the way in which it is possible to control a local council with only 100 people in the local Labour party.

§ Mr. Connarty
I respect the Deputy Speaker's position, but I wonder whether a debate about a constituency Labour party which has absolutely no relevance to local government law in Scotland has any relevance.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
I shall listen further.

§ Mr. Shaw
The local Labour party has but 100 people effectively working in it.

§ Mr. Gordon McMaster (Paisley, South)
Tell us about the power.

§ Mr. Shaw
The power is controlled, as I was coming on to say, by a small trade union vote, which largely consists of council employees active in the trade unions. [Interruption.]

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Order.

§ Mr. Shaw
Those council employees attend the local party meetings, where they elect into power people who then become councillors.

§ Mr. Connarty
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

§ Mr. Shaw
I have just used the word "councillors".

§ Mr. Connarty
I think it is relevant, because I have been on a course on that subject, Madam Deputy Speaker, that a district Labour party which is responsible for controlling any policy matter relating to a district council 1178 in Scotland does not consist of members of a constituency Labour party. The hon. Gentleman is speaking about a constituency Labour party and who attended a constituency Labour party general committee. It has been ruled already in law that it is not a relevant matter on a district council. He was speaking about local government.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
That is a matter for an intervention rather than a point of order for the Chair.

§ Mr. Shaw
I am only too happy for the hon. Gentleman either to intervene in my speech or, if he so wishes, to make his own speech afterwards. If he wants to attempt to alter or amend anything that I have said, I am sure that the House and the world will be very grateful. If he would have a word with the leader of his party and ask him to make a statement to the press correcting anything that I have said about Monklands, I am sure that the press and the world would be grateful if the Leader of the Opposition were to make a statement.

§ Mr. McMaster
Has not the Leader of the Opposition made it clear that the Secretary of State for Scotland has powers to investigate Monklands district council? To date, the Secretary of State has chosen not to use those powers.

§ Mr. Shaw
The Secretary of State for Scotland has challenged the Leader of the Opposition to produce the internal Labour documents for the inquiry that I have just mentioned. The fact is that John Smith will not produce the papers.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman has forgotten that in this House we do not refer to hon. Members by name.

§ Mr. Shaw
I apologise, of course, Madam Deputy Speaker. I meant to say that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) had not produced the background papers for the Labour party report.

§ Mr. McMaster
Has not the Minister with responsibility for Scottish local government, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), appeared on BBC television's excellent "Scottish Lobby" programme and said that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East has nothing to answer?

§ Mr. Shaw
I have spoken to my hon. Friend the Minister. I have heard no suggestion that the Leader of the Opposition has nothing to answer. I have frequently heard my hon. Friend say that he believes that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East should stop being silent and behaving like a Trappist monk, and that he should make a statement about what is going on in his own constituency. I have heard that said at the Dispatch Box and more widely.
The Monklands, East Labour party is in a very bad state. It is controlled by no more than about 100 people. There is a heavy trade union vote.

§ Mr. Connarty
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) is supposed to be talking about local government. In fact, he is talking about Monklands, East constituency Labour party. It is clearly established that constituency Labour parties, under the local government law of Scotland, of which I have some knowledge, have nothing to do with district Labour parties or district councils.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
The hon. Gentleman must understand that that is a matter on which he may wish to intervene. It is not a point of order for the Chair.

§ Mr. Shaw
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
As I have tried to say on a number of occasions—I wish to repeat the point—I am concerned about how the councillors become councillors. How do they remain as councillors? How do they get access to the council gravy train? The fact is that they get access to the council gravy train in Monklands by getting control of the local Labour party. They get control of the local Labour party because it is bankrupt and in debt to the tune of £2,500, and it has only about 100 members. As a result, it is quite easy to get control of a council with a turnover of £80 million simply by paying the subscriptions for about 100 members of the local Labour party in Monklands.

§ Mr. McMaster
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Would you clarify this point? Did you hear the hon. Member for Dover accuse the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East of paying for Labour party membership subscriptions in his constituency to ensure that he was the Member of Parliament for that constituency?

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
No, I did not hear that.

§ Mr. Shaw
That was not what I said at all. The hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) is clearly trying to distort the facts. All I said was that it was possible to control the whole of Monklands district council and some £80 million of council expenditure by paying for the subscriptions for 100 people. I did not say who was paying for the subscriptions for the 100 people. I leave it to the public to work that out.

§ Mr. Connarty
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Shaw
I have given way very generously. I have also had to cope with many points of order, which hon. Gentlemen have raised to try to stop the flow of my speech.
On employment practices in Monklands, 40 close relatives of councillors have been appointed at secret meetings of the council. That has been achieved by a chairman, the convenor of the manpower services committee, or his representative, attending every interview for a job on the council. That practice has existed since the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) started it in the 1970s when he was the council's provost.
The House has also heard of the green and pink forms used by Monk lands district council to ensure that councillors and their friends could distribute the green forms while the pink forms were left for the rest of the unemployed in Monklands. Consequently, many councillors' relatives and senior local Labour party members have jobs on the council.

§ Mr. McMaster
Will the hon. Gentleman answer two specific questions? First, despite what he said earlier., did not the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) appear in the excellent "Scottish Lobby" programme about five or six weeks ago and say that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East had nothing to answer? Secondly, in the past year the hon. Gentleman has asked several questions about Monklands, which I accept is his right as an hon. Member. How many questions has he asked in the past year about his own constituency of Dover, and how many has he asked about Monklands?

§ Mr. Shaw
The hon. Gentleman must realise that Dover has assisted area status as a result of my efforts. It has much more going for it than Monklands, and Dover council is much more efficient. My constituents are extremely worried about the cost that they are paying for Labour-controlled councils like Monklands, where the Labour party is seriously abusing expenditure.

§ Mr. Connarty
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Shaw
No. I wish to make some headway now.
There has been a tremendous abuse of employment practices in Monklands. They have been purloined for the benefit of councillors and their families. A case has even been reported recently in which Councillor Fitzpatrick chaired an appeal committee of the council against an unfair dismissal involving three employees in which he upheld the dismissal. Having dismissed the three employees, he arranged for his brother-in-law to fill one of the jobs. The only problem was that the three men were later found to have been unfairly dismissed.
When the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East wrote to the council saying that that seemed to be wrong practice and unfair, he was told to go jump. The council was not interested in his views. The councillors in Monklands district council are more powerful than the Leader of the Opposition.

§ Mr. Connarty
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Shaw
Not for the moment.
The other concern about employment practices which I want to bring to the attention of the House is that some 16 senior district Labour party members are employed by the council: Joe Barrett has family members employed. Celia Conwell, Des O'Neill, Joy Scott, Jay Brown, Matt Costello, Andy Burns, Stephen Fagan and Martin Dempsey are all senior Labour party officials employed by the council. According to the local newspaper, those do not include other Labour party members, whose numbers in some council departments are understood to be high. The Airdrie and Coatbridge Advertiser said on 25 September 1992: Two members of the District Labour party executive were among those promoted into highly-paid jobs in the Housing department. Others also include the election agent of a high-ranking Labour councillor, who also received a housing promotion, and the son of another senior member. A council spokesman admitted the posts had not been advertised or interviews conducted … a leading Labour party member said, `Monklands has become the Tammany hall of Scotland."' This week's edition of the paper has discovered that a district Labour party member, Alex Brown, a deputy house maintenance manager—why a deputy is needed I do not know; when I was on Kingston council 20 years ago we abolished deputy posts, but there seems to be a plethora of them in Monklands—and his four sons are all employed by the council. There is more too: a daughter-in-law, a brother-in-law and possibly one more family member. It is believed that at least seven members of the family are employed by the council. They enjoy the knowledge that the senior member of the family is also a senior member of the party.
Let us examine the planning process in Monklands and how the council operates its planning policies. Is the agenda under the control of the councillors, or under the control of a small clique of them? There have been breaches of local plans. In 1981 Monklands district council 1181 passed a local plan, but when Councillor Brooks, the leader of the council, wanted planning permission, the Labour group gave him it, even though it breached seven of the—

§ Mr. McMaster
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has just said that the Labour group on a Scottish council gave a member of that council planning permission for a development. Under Scottish law, planning permission is a quasi-judicial function and Labour groups are not allowed to participate in group decisions on planning permission. Is the hon. Gentleman allowed to say such things in the Chamber.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
That is not a point of order. An hon. Member might want to refute the point in a speech, but it is not one for the Chair.

§ Mr. Connarty
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker—

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I have just said that it was not a point of order.

§ Mr. Connarty
On a point of order of my own, then. The Chair in this Chamber is supposed to protect the rights of the citizens of this country. Surely such defamation should not be allowed in the name of this Chamber?

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Members of this House have certain privileges that enable them to make statements. The only proviso is that we expect them to advance their views with circumspection and with due regard to the fact that they enjoy these privileges. The privileges exist nevertheless.

§ Mr. Shaw
The fact remains that seven of Monklands' planning policies were breached. That is not a point of contention; it is admitted by everyone. Councillor Brooks correctly declared his interest at the official council meeting when the breach was effected, but I understand that the vote was taken at a Labour group meeting before the council meeting at which it was agreed to back Councillor Brooks' development. He received that backing even though the director of planning was not in agreement, and even though seven policies under the local plan were breached: policies H15, IND16, IND17, IND20, IND21, COM2(2), COM13 and COM15. But the leader of the council got his planning permission anyway, and he implemented it.

§ Mr. McMaster
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the year 1981 and made the scurrilous accusation that there was a breach of planning policy. As I recall, the director of planning in Monklands district council that year was Mr. Andrew Cowe, who later became the managing director of Renfrew district council. He still holds that post and is a former leader of Renfrew district council. I worked closely with him and hold him in the highest regard. Is the hon. Gentleman making any specific allegation against Mr. Andrew Cowe?

§ Mr. Shaw
I understand that that particular planning officer left Monklands and went to Renfrew district council because of his disgust at the fact that the local plan in Monklands had been breached.

§ Mr. McMaster
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know the person whose name is being called 1182 into question very well indeed on a professional level. Mr. Andrew Cowe chose to leave Monklands district council because he sought promotion to a larger council—Renfrew district council. That was a scurrilous remark against an individual who cannot defend himself here.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I must make clear to hon. Members the difference between disagreements and points of order. Of course the hon. Member may disagree strongly. I hope that he will have the opportunity to speak later, but that is not a point of order for the Chair.

§ Mr. McMaster
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I have already said that it is not a point of order.

§ Mr. Shaw
I have made it clear I am not in any way criticising the gentleman who has just been named. He did very well to make it clear that he was not in agreement with what the Labour party was doing in Monklands district council. He did not like what the Labour party was up to and he went on record saying that the way in which the Labour party was operating in Monklands district council was totally corrupt and wrong. He did it in the most obvious way possible, yet still they voted through the planning permission that breached seven areas of the local plan to give considerable financial benefit to the leader of the council.
Many people may well ask who gets the planning permission that counts in Monklands. I have already spoken of the leader of the council who got his planning permission for Dundyvan road. He built some flats, some offices and a nursing home. He took a Scottish Development Agency loan of £45,000 and got the agency to write it off, without repaying the loan. His company still owns the land and the building despite the fact that it went into liquidation, the creditors were not paid and the taxpayer lost some £45,000.
More significant is the planning permission that S. L. Homes Ltd. has managed to achieve. The company's last filed accounts in 1991 showed assets of £7 million and liabilities of nearly £7 million. The company was in financial difficulties, and it is supported by Scottish Legal Life Assurance, a company that has many policyholders and investors. The company had appointed directors to the board of S. L. Homes Ltd., but did the assurance company's directors know about the loan of £35,000?

§ Mr. Connarty
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has raised the discussions of constituency Labour parties. Unfortunately, he does not realise that they have nothing at all to do with district Labour parties or councils in Scotland. Now he is talking about a company—not a local authority but a company in the house building business.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I do not think that is a point of order for the Chair. I am sure that the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) will relate his remarks to local government.

§ Mr. Shaw
I am about to talk about how a company got planning permission in the Monklands district council area.

§ Mr. McMaster
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to you for allowing me to raise this 1183 matter. Will you confirm that your ruling on my previous intervention correctly made it clear that, although Conservative Members have the right to say what they say, that does not necessarily mean it is true?

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
The Chair, happily, has no responsibility for the accuracy or otherwise of hon. Members' points made in speeches. My only concern is whether matters are points of order for the Chair.. I have tried to make a distinction between those that are and those that are not. Of course, all hon. Members are free, through an intervention or their speech, to refute matters that are put forward by other hon. Members.

§ Mr. Shaw
If the hon. Members for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) and for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) have any doubts about the truth of this, I commend to them the information from Scottish Companies House, which shows clearly that S. L. Homes Ltd. lent £35,000 to a family company owned and controlled by the leader of Monk lands district council. It lent money in exchange for planning permissions given by Monklands district council. The fact is that the council leader, through his family, is connected to Commercial and Industrial Maintenance Ltd. S. L. Homes Ltd. has received planning permissions in connection with two property developments in the Monklands area. S. L. Homes Ltd. is owned and controlled by Mr. Brian Dempsey, the son of the former Labour Member of Parliament for Monklands, West, who is currently trying to get control of Glasgow Celtic football club.

§ Mr. McMaster
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Connarty
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Shaw
I give way to the hon. Member for Paisley, South.

§ Mr. McMaster
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but he is a little behind the times. Mr. Brian Dempsey and Mr. Fergus McCann now have control of Glasgow Celtic football club.

§ Mr. Shaw
The hon. Gentleman may not have checked the corporate returns correctly. Mr. Dempsey has not joined the board of directors and does not exercise control from that point of view, perhaps because he is concerned about the fact that five directors of his company all resigned on 23 December last year, according to information that I have today and that has just been filed at Companies House. Those five directors were appointed by Scottish Legal Life Assurance. Clearly, there is real concern that they had a conflict between their interest in looking after the interests of depositors in Scottish Legal Life Assurance and their interests as directors of S. L. Homes Ltd., a company lending £35,000 to a company owned and controlled by the family of the council leader of Monklands district council.

§ Mr. Connarty
Obviously, once again the hon. Gentleman is not up to date with what is going on. I understand that the company that was owned by Mr. Brian Dempsey was bought by a major construction company for more than £20 million. The company to which he refers is now in the hands of yet another company, which might explain why a relationship between Scottish Legal Life Assurance and Mr. Dempsey's company may no longer exist.
1184 It might be advisable for the hon. Gentleman to step outside the Chamber if he wishes to make accusations against someone whom I know to be a very honourable member of the building profession and who is highly respected in Scotland, not just for his interest in a football team but for the profitable work that he has done for many people in the building industry. The hon. Gentleman should perhaps get back to the drivel that he was talking a few minutes ago.

§ Mr. Shaw
If the hon. Gentleman is correct, he is admitting on behalf of Mr. Dempsey that the returns at Companies House are false and fraudulent. He should, therefore, be careful about what he is admitting on behalf of Mr. Dempsey, with whom I believe he has no personal financial connection. If the hon. Gentleman is declaring an interest, financial or otherwise, with Mr. Dempsey, I should be interested in hearing the interest that he wishes to disclose.

§ Mr. Connarty
Let me make it quite plain. I have no financial interest or any other interest in the business of Mr. Brian Dempsey. In fact, I have even less interest in the football team in which he has an interest than most hon. Members in Scotland. I have no connection at all. I am suggesting to the hon. Gentleman that if he wants to throw mud at limited targets—because of the political process, the limited targets that he has chosen at the moment have little redress—he should be willing to step outside the House when he talks about someone who is respected in the business community in Scotland. As the gentleman's father was a Member of the House—James Dempsey was my Member of Parliament for a number of years and is a very honourable man—the hon. Gentleman should really restrain himself in the vilification in which he participates in the House. It does not do him any credit. If he steps outside the House, it may do him a great financial disservice.

§ Mr. Shaw
The hon. Gentleman seems to be keen to defend Mr. Dempsey. Perhaps he would like to explain why, when Mr. Dempsey was on the board of directors of S. L. Homes—he is still recorded at Companies House as being on the board of directors—the company, having obtained planning permissions in the Monklands area, then paid the leader of the district council's family company £35,000. Why did Mr. Dempsey authorise that payment? There is no mud, and no distortion; it is on record at Companies House in Edinburgh. The hon. Gentleman can look it up for himself in the records of Commercial and Industrial Maintenance Ltd.

§ Mr. Keith Vaz (Leicester, East)
Get on with it.

§ Mr. Shaw
I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am trying to get on with it, but there have been a good many interruptions from his colleagues, which he could stop if he wanted to.

§ Mr. Vaz
The hon. Gentleman is talking rubbish.

§ Mr. Shaw
The hon. Gentleman knows that I am not. He and I have discussed fraud in other debates, and have listened to each other's speeches with great interest. This is a matter of fact.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I cannot allow a conversation between the hon. Member who has the Floor and another hon. Member sitting on the Front Bench—or anywhere else, for that matter.

§ Mr. Connarty
The hon. Gentleman said earlier that he had debated questions of fraud. Is he now accusing Mr. Brian Dempsey and any member of Monklands district council of fraud?

§ Mr. Shaw
Certainly I should like an answer to my question. I think that many people will take different views on how family members come to be employed by the council, how people who pay their subscription to the Labour party get jobs on the council, how planning permissions are obtained on the council and how money changes hands around the time planning permissions are granted. People are going to ask, "How has this happened? Why do all these transactions seem to coincide, involving jobs, money and membership of the Labour party? How is it that money has gone from S. L. Homes to a company owned by the family of the leader of Monklands district council at the same time as the granting of planning permissions to the property development company?" The position is less than satisfactory.

§ Mr. McMaster
I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am no more here to defend the integrity of Brian Dempsey—although I think he has a lot of integrity—than he is here to defend that of Pamella Bordes, or some Daily Star photographer who was badly beaten up outside his house. Let me ask him a question, however, when will he stop misrepresenting Monklands, and start.

§ Mr. Shaw
That shows the desperate lengths to which Labour will go to cover up the matter. The hon. Gentleman knows that I am taking facts straight from Companies House, and that I have researched the information. As I said earlier, it comes from Labour's own statements; even its own report contained a mild criticism of Monklands district council. The hon. Gentleman is becoming very desperate. He is getting things out of proportion.
The losses in four council companies in Monklands—the Quadrant shopping centre, MDC Windows, the Time Capsule (Monklands) Ltd. and Summerlee Heritage Trust—amount to £6 million in three years. We are all paying for those losses; every man, woman and child in the country is paying for them, through taxation. Mysteriously, several of those companies have managed to win tenders from the council. It has been suggested to me that that is because the tenders from competing companies are always opened in advance, and the council companies are told what to bid. It is strange that loss-making companies always manage to win tenders in Monklands when they are controlled by the council.
Earlier I paid tribute to Dover district council's housing department. I should now like to deal with some of the problems in Monklands district council's housing department so that a proper contrast can be drawn between a good council and a bad council. Monklands is a very bad council.
Labour's policy in Monklands has been against council house sales, except where those sales are to councillors and their families. The council policy has been extended to allow sales to councillor's sons as well. Mrs. Willamina Wylie, a 63-year-old widow, was not allowed to buy her council home at 36 Newlands street. However, Councillor 1186 Gilson's son at 28 Newlands street was allowed to buy his home. Two other council tenants in Newlands street were refused. The council could not explain the position to the ombudsman and, for that reason alone, Monklands district council was found guilty of maladministration in its housing department.
When Martin Dempsey, a Labour party member, ex-councillor and now a council employee—the Labour party looks after its ex-councillors in Monklands—needed a council house, he was put ahead of 300 homeless people. He beat Mr. Lenny Miles and his fiancee who had been waiting for a council house for four years. Of course, Mr. Lenny Miles and his fiancee are not paid up members of the Labour party, so they have to go to the back of the queue when Mr. Martin Dempsey is involved.
Other abuses of the housing department are numerous. I suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that an independent housing department is essential if the housing is to be managed fairly between all applicants and repairs are to be carried out fairly, without preference to individual tenants. Transfers can be abused to the extent that councillors and their families receive preferential treatment unless there is proper independence.
Additionally, decisions about which homes are improved can be made fairly and properly only in an independently run operation. Much council money is spent on housing repairs and improvements. Decisions about the allocation of that money mean that considerable power can be exercised over the lives of ordinary people. Allegations of preferential treatment for councillors and their families are commonplace in Monklands.
Factors that give rise to a lack of independence in housing decision-making in Monklands include the fact that the wife of the director of housing is employed in the council's Time Capsule leisure centre. It compromises his independence and he must ask whether he can make independent decisions when his wife's employment is controlled by councillors who can cause him personal financial loss if he does not go along with the decisions that they want him to make.
The provost of the council, Councillor Gilson, is a former convenor of the housing committee. He has a daughter working in the housing department. The convenor of the general purposes committee, Councillor Fitzpatrick, has a wife who is a senior housing officer and a nephew who is a rent officer. The convenor of the housing committee, Councillor Betty Leitch, is also compromised by the fact that she has a daughter employed in the library service. All that has led to a number of problems involving housing decision-making.
Some years ago, Councillor Gilson moved from his council-owned property in Henderson street, which is regarded as a fairly poor area, to a better council house in upmarket Blairpark ward, which is not the ward that he represents. He proceeded to buy that house using his full discount for the years in his previous house. There is a feeling locally that the move was arranged by Labour councillors in order to provide him with a virtual gift of a comparatively upmarket house. Councillor Gilson bought his home at a time when he publicly supported Labour party policy against the sale of council houses.
Councillor Smith obtained a council tenancy amid much controversy last year in an upmarket area, which is not the ward that he represents. I have mentioned Martin Dempsey, the ex-councillor who managed to get a council house. Councillor Cairns has managed to get a house that 1187 was bought by the local regional council. Also, Christopher Barrett, the son of ex-councillor, Joe Barrett, now a local Labour party treasurer, who unfortunately had to resign as a councillor because of a little problem connected with a fiddle involving his expenses, obtained his grandfather' s council house at 15 Dunothar avenue. No one locally ever saw Christopher Barrett sleep a night in that house, yet the grandson's name suddenly appeared on the electoral register and he suddenly became eligible for a tenancy in a house with which he had no connection other than the fact that his grandfather lived there. Meanwhile, many homeless people in Monklands were denied council houses.
I now move on to the finance department, where a £1,000 cheque made out to a local builder recently went missing. It was discovered two months later to have been paid into the leader of the council's personal bank account, despite the fact that it was made payable to a local builder. The finance department altered the records of the council to pretend that the cheque was a payment to the council leader for his expenses. It did not tell the auditor, who discovered it only when a Scottish Television programme identified that this had happened last year. The council had kept this secret to itself.

§ Mr. Connarty
I am sure that with his deep knowledge of Scottish local government, from the perspective of Dover, the hon. Gentleman will realise that any misappropriation of funds or expenditure outwith the financial remits of the council would bring a qualification by the auditor on the council's accounts. I read its accounts because the hon. Member has given us such a reason to be interested in Scotland, but I could find no such qualification. In fact, I found a clear statement that there was no qualification on the accounts of Monklands district council. Can he explain why that should be so, as he appears to be accusing the finance department of losing a cheque for £1,000, misappropriating it and putting in a different account under a different title?

§ Mr. Shaw
I am not responsible for the district auditor's report, but the leader of the council does not deny that the cheque was made out to a local builder. Nor does he deny that it ended up in his bank account and that he had signed it on the back and endorsed it. If the district auditor did not feel that he had to refer to that in his report, that is a matter for him, but it does not say much for audit standards if the auditor felt that he could not refer to the fact that the council's finance department had altered its records to make that cheque, made payable to a local builder, an advance on expenses.
The law and administration department has recently had a problem—after the audit date to which the hon. Member for Falkirk, East referred. A taxi licensing fraud has been discovered; some £45,000 is estimated to have gone astray. The police are investigating; an employee has resigned.
I shall conclude by saying that the standards of local government in many areas of the country are quite high—in areas under Conservative administration and control. In Monklands, the country is being let down. Matters are serious and are getting worse in Monklands. Serious matters are being brought to people's attention week in and week out in Monklands. The fact is that there is nepotism, corruption and wrongdoing in Monklands. That has been 1188 established in the local newspapers and accepted widely, yet we still have silence from the Leader of the Opposition. We still hear nothing from him.

§ Mr. Keith Vaz (Leicester, East)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) on being selected to propose a motion on the subject of local government. The nation is fortunate that the debate has taken place so early in the morning and that so few people have had to endure the rantings and sheer nonsense that purport to be his speech.
Perhaps one should look into the individual psyche of the hon. Member to find out why he has not used the debate to raise important issues of concern to his constituents. We have heard about Redbridge, Islington, Lewisham and even Tameside but there was no mention of Pineham ward and the events of 25 November 1993 which, I am sure, are etched on the hon. Gentleman's heart.
This is no ordinary man; this is a man obsessed, a man in need of help. Monklands has become a means by which the hon. Gentleman obtains self-gratification. There is another word for it but I understand from the Clerks that it is unparliamentary so I shall not use it. I can only repeat the advice given to him by his mother many years ago: if he keeps going on about it, there is a real danger that he will go blind.
It is time that Tory scaremongering and petty politicking was blown open. The Conservative party and the hon. Gentleman are attempting to use diversionary scare tactics to cover their sordid footsteps but it will not work. Where there is so much as an insinuation of incorrectness in local authorities, we as a party insist that it is investigated, not behind closed doors with Members of Parliament manoeuvring and interfering in due process but out in the open where public scrutiny ensures that it is properly dealt with.
However, in a recent interview, the hon. Member for Dover revealed the Conservative party's true view of how local authorities should be run—not democratically by councillors but by certain Members of Parliament, such as the hon. Member for Dover, interfering. He told the Local Government Chronicle: MPs have to be tough. If there are any suspicions about a councillor and his actions, whatever party he may belong to, then that party has to question whether he should be readopted. The report continues: Mr. Shaw said he had taken such action in his constituency. In the light of the comments of the leaders of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat groups on Dover council, Councillor Sansum wrote to the hon. Gentleman asking him to clarify which councillors he had removed in his democratic selection process.
There was a great deal of correspondence between the hon. Gentleman and Councillor Sansum, ending with a letter dated 8 July 1993 and signed by the hon. Gentleman. I have a copy of it and I should like to remind the hon. Gentleman of its contents. He wrote: I am far too busy on constituency matters to worry about the press being 100 per cent. correct. That is his view on accuracy and the way in which he is quoted.

§ Mr. McMaster
The admission of the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) that he is too busy to worry about 1189 whether the press is 100 per cent. correct is similar to the comment that I believe he made to a female photographer of the Daily Star at about the same time.

§ Mr. Vaz
That may be so, but I do not know whether it has anything to do with local government. I am, however, grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out.
The hon. Member for Dover is not so keen to intervene when his constituents face ruin and hardship because of the closure of mines. Labour follows the law, which is why my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition has twice written to the Secretary of State for Scotland stating that, if there is any evidence of impropriety, an investigation must be instigated. That has not happened. Allegations should be made through the channels of evidence and proof, not in behind-the-hand whispers.
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber earlier today when the Prime Minister said: If the hon. Gentleman has any firm charges to make, perhaps he should make them other than by innuendo and under privilege of the House. They are not my words, but those of the Prime Minister. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Dover has the guts to go outside and make the allegations that he has made tonight.
Over the past year, the Labour party has continued to grow at local level. We are now the largest single party in local government with 9,129 councillors compared to the Conservatives' 7,846 and the Liberal Democrats' 4,088. To the lists of councils that we control we now add Derby city council. I wish the new Labour authority there all success.
The reason for our success in local government is simple and irrefutable. It is that people have seen that Labour councils offer the best services at the most reasonable rates. Labour is proud of its achievements in local government. There is a plethora of examples of excellence in local government. For example, Labour leaders such as Teresa Stewart in Birmingham, Grahame Stringer in Manchester, Phil Homer in The Wrekin, Margaret Moran in Lewisham, Jeremy Beecham in Newcastle, Brian Flood in North Tyneside, John Ingham in Plymouth, John Taylor in Nottingham and many more continue to struggle to provide the best services possible under a Conservative regime that has made Britain the most centralised country in Europe.
The Government have set themselves the task of destroying local authorities and, with them, the democracy that has acted to restrain the corruption with which the hon. Member for Dover is so infatuated. Since 1979 the Conservatives have introduced 155 separate Acts of Parliament interfering with and undermining local government. Not one of those Acts has improved, or really attempted to improve, local democracy. Local individuals are now more remote from the decision-making process than at any time in living memory. People's taxes are no longer spent locally to improve conditions and services. Instead, they are directly controlled by Westminster, where absurd equations are used to calculate what percentage of money raised locally may be spent locally.
The Government have adopted a cynical chain of blame, which ensures that local authorities are held responsible for decisions that are made by Ministers and their henchmen. If ever it seems that Ministers are to be held responsible for 1190 their despicable decisions the truth is quickly shielded or the blame passed on more quickly than bad news. The three local government Ministers—the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), the Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) and the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), who is here tonight—adopt the "Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" stance when the blame comes round, or use the Prime Minister's favourite phrase, "It's not a matter for me."
The Conservative party has presided over the destruction of all that British democracy had to be proud of—the destruction of open and democratic government, once seen as a tenet central to Conservative ideals. Lord Salisbury, one of the Conservative party's greatest leaders, praised and respected local government and insisted on increasing the powers of local authorities. As he said in 1885—119 years ago—at a rally in Newport: Large reforms in our local government are necessary and in the direction of increasing powers to local government. You must provide local government with sufficient power and add to this power by diminishing the excessive and exaggerated powers which have been heaped upon central authorities in London. The Government are guided by self-interest and they fear open, just and democratic local government. They should return to Salisbury's ideals, and not the questionable basics to which some Ministers have been happy to return.
Yesterday, during Department of the Environment questions, we had yet another example of a Conservative Minister changing his tune to suit the situation. The hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon, in reply to a question on the council tax, went into a long and—may I say?—flawed explanation as to why it is incorrect to use average council tax rates to compare different councils. Three questions later the same Minister was merrily comparing authorities, using—yes—average council tax rates. The confusion is understandable because, no matter how the Conservatives have tried to hide it and Ministers have tried to wriggle, as the Prime Minister did earlier today, the fact remains that, in the financial year 1994–95, average council tax bills per household will be £40 lower in Labour areas than in Conservative areas and £26 lower than in Liberal Democrat areas—and this at a time when Conservative-led authorities are receiving massive funding, poured into them at the cost of the most needy.
Wandsworth council receives 11.6 per cent. of the non-needs-related grant for the whole of Britain, even though its population constitutes only 0.5 per cent. of England's. If, however, the Conservatives wish to talk about tax, should not we scrutinise their record nationally? Before the last election the Conservatives, in their do-anything, say-anything panic to win power, promised that there would be no new taxes and that they would cut taxes year on year.

§ Mr. McMaster
I realise that I am asking my hon. Friend a question that it may be difficult for him to answer, but can he imagine why the hon. Member for Dover is the only Member to record in the Register of Members' Interests the fact that his companies are "dormant"? Is there any tax advantage in doing that?

§ Mr. Vaz
I do not know, but I am sure that we shall be down at Companies house tomorrow checking the records, as the hon. Member for Dover spends more time there than he appears to spend in the Chamber—or in Dover.
The Government's promises were made not on a wet night in Dudley, but at every press conference and public 1191 meeting that the Conservatives held before the general election. Now, less than two years later, we are faced with tax increases and new taxes. Most people—those earning less than £60,000 a year—are now paying more than they were when Denis Healey was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and promised to tax the rich until the pips squeaked. Under the Conservative Government, not only have the pips squeaked, but the juice has run dry.
The revenue has been wilfully squandered on toadying up to Conservative supporters and attempting to cover up the economic bankruptcy and failure of Conservative dogma. Under Conservative party rule not only have people had to endure spiralling tax, uncontrollable unemployment rates, mounting crime, decaying infrastructure and a breakdown in social standards, but the means of correcting those unacceptable changes have been placed beyond the reach of the people most affected.
The growth in influence of that much-loved Tory master, the quango, has reached the stage where quangos' budgets rival those of local authorities. If they continue to increase in influence, it is calculated that by 1996 quangos will control £54 billion of public money—almost a quarter of all Government expenditure.
The most worrying aspect of that development is that quangos can spend their money as they please, with no checks whatever, whereas the way in which local authorities run by democratically elected councillors allocate their budgets is under the direct control of the Conservative party—most notably through the draconian capping legislation so adored in Marsham street. Quite rightly, if a councillor is found to have committed fraud or wasted council money, he or she will be surcharged, or will be subject to criminal proceedings. Yet when questions are asked, members of quango boards are carefully and gracefully allowed to retire from their positions with a golden handshake and a gong.
Quangos are not only undemocratic and unprincipled but inefficient. For every £60 lost by central Government and quangos in fraud, mismanagement and waste, only £1 is lost by local government. The Property Services Agency lost £65.6 million, and Wessex health authority wasted £20 million on a computer that did not work. West Midlands health authority squandered £10 million on botched privatisation; the chairman resigned and was given a golden handshake.
If those standards were repeated in local authorities, there would rightly be public outcry, and the events would have to be fully investigated. The hon. Member for Dover would no doubt have booked his air ticket or rail ticket just to have a look at the area, like a grand inquisitor. But with the quangos everything is done to conceal the true situation of the Tory placemen and placewomen.

§ Mr. McMaster
One of the other allowances that Members of Parliament are fortunate enough to obtain—it is absolutely legitimate—is an office costs allowance. We all try to spend that to our satisfaction. At one time the hon. Member for Dover derived great satisfaction from his office costs allowance.

§ Mr. Vaz
I am grateful for that information from my hon. Friend.
Probably because the successes are Labour run, the hon. Member for Dover is insistent that we concentrate not on 1192 the successes of local councils in continuing to provide efficient services to local people, but on alleged impropriety.
There are a few home truths that the Conservative party has tried to keep hidden from scrutiny. The hon. Gentleman mentioned Conservative Brent. Brent has the worst record on arrears. It is also difficult to know who is in control of Brent on any given day. Councillor Blackman's Tory group, if one may call it a group, splits amoeba-like every few months. Tory councillors move resolutions on a range of bizarre subjects, including female circumcision. What a shambles. Nationally the Government have failed to collect £1.7 billion of tax owed for 1992–93. The eight highest council rent chargers in London are Conservative, with the local authority of the Minister for Housing, Inner Cities and Construction having the worst record. Westminster and Wandsworth combined owe £552 million. The three London boroughs with the largest debt per head are all Conservative.
In contrast, Labour councils not only have lower council taxes but have won national awards for efficiency and quality of service at a greater rate than those controlled by any other party. That is the true result of Labour control. Which councils did the Secretary of State choose to launch City Pride? Manchester and Birmingham, two excellent Labour councils. It must also be realised that where Labour authorities have got themselves into financial difficulties it is because they have tried to provide for local people and invest in their future, not cynically squander resources in attempts to influence the political balance of a borough.
Local government needs to be supported, not ridiculed. There is a new breed of civic entrepreneur who, if given the opportunity, can lead the country forward bravely into the next millennium. Such people have to be free to do so, free from the shackles of central Government and openly responsible and accountable to their electorate. I have seen for myself the abundant talent in local government during the progress of the City 2020 inquiry, of which I am chair, as it has travelled the length and breadth of the country. Unless we return to a time when local government provided a tool of municipal pride, we will continue to see our cities and society dragged down through the mire of corruption and dirty dealing.
This is not a private vision held by the Labour party. It is echoed by the private sector over and over again, most recently by the director general of the Confederation of British Industry, when he demanded on Monday that central Government allow councils greater flexibility over their own functions, particularly through greater control of their own money.
Local government, through democratic and accountable control, is the most efficient means of providing services for local people. Local councils need to be freed from central Government intervention so that once again people receive what they want and need most efficiently instead of suffering the present system which provides only for Conservative supporters on the boards of various unrepresentative bodies.
As the hon, Member for Dover mentioned the debt of Labour councils, I shall end by pointing out to him and to the House that the Government have borrowed twice as much in a single financial year as the net total that Labour councils have borrowed over 60 years. The Government's public sector borrowing requirement for this year alone is £49.8 billion. The total external debt of all Labour local councils, built up over decades, is £22.7 billion. The 1193 Government's borrowing for 1993–94 is more than communist China's over 50 years—China's external debt at the end of 1992 was £45.8 billion. Westminster and Wandsworth each have a bigger debt than Mongolia. Conservative Croydon has a bigger debt than the Seychelles.
Those are debts that are currently owed. We need no lectures on debt from the Conservative party, and we expect to receive none. It is time the Government understood that local government needs to be able to carry out its functions in the best way it can. It is time that a real civic vision was realised.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry)
I am responsible for local government in England, and it is perhaps not surprising that at this time of the night the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) had to have recourse to that sort of knockabout speech. Local government is, of course, very important. I would certainly be prepared to make a prediction here and now at the Dispatch Box that after the local government elections in May there will be more Conservative councillors in England and fewer Labour councillors. The hon. Gentleman knows that people in the Labour party are worried that it will lose control of councils such as Birmingham, Kirklees and others. One of the reasons why it will lose is that people know that Conservative councils cost less.
Let me try to help the hon. Member for Leicester, East with his problem on averages. It is simple. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) wishes to pretend that the way to assess council tax payments fairly is by an average council tax. But, of course, no one pays an average council tax. People pay a particular band. If one compares band A with band A and band B with band B, Conservative councils cost less.

§ Mr. Vaz
Will the Minister give way?

§ Mr. Baldry
No, let me explain this to the hon. Gentleman. If one takes the average of Conservative councils at band A and the average of Labour councils at band A across the country, Conservative councils cost £99 less than Labour councils at band A. If one takes each and every separate band, Conservative councils cost less. People understand and appreciate that. They can see it in their own council tax bill. They can compare it with neighbouring authorities. They are not stupid. They appreciate that to take an average of the totality of the housing stock of an area is to produce a statistically meaningless figure. The hon. Gentleman knows that, too.

§ Mr. Vaz
Is the Minister saying that the Conservative party and the Government have never compared the average figures?

§ Mr. Baldry
I have just explained to the hon. Gentleman that the only average is the average of all the Conservative band A council taxes compared with the average of all Labour band A council taxes. Whatever band one chooses to take, band for band—

§ Mr. McMaster
Will the Minister give way?

§ Mr. Baldry
The hon. Gentleman has been up and down like a yo-yo all evening. He has ants in his pants.
Of the 10 highest council taxes announced, seven are from Labour authorities and none has been set by a Conservative council. Of the 10 lowest council taxes announced, none has been set by a Labour council. Let us take the highest 10 councils taxes at band C, although one could take any band. The highest is Liverpool, where two different factions of the Labour party are busily disputing who should run Liverpool.
The hon. Member for Leicester, East thought that the Labour party might gain seats in Manchester. I should be surprised at that, as Manchester Labour group has set the second highest council tax in the country at £691 for band C. Newcastle upon Tyne, Coventry, Langbaurgh, Salford, Bristol, Cleethorpes, Middlesbrough and Hartlepool, all Labour controlled, are in the top 10.
When one looks at the lowest 10 council taxes, one sees not one Labour name among them.

§ Mr. McMaster
Does the Minister accept that we need no lessons in arithmetic from him? Did he not come to a European Standing Committee yesterday morning which eight Conservatives and seven Opposition Members had the right to attend and yet he managed to lose? Is that some sort of record?

§ Mr. Baldry
I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman can add up to 15. If that is the best that the Labour party can do, even at 3.48 in the morning, it may well explain why I am perfectly content to rest with my prediction that after the local government elections there will be more Conservative councillors in England and fewer Labour councillors.

§ Mr. Connarty
Will the Minister give way?

§ Mr. Baldry
No, I will not give way again as I have very little time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dover raised some sensible issues about local authority debt. Again, there is no way in which the Opposition can disguise the fact that Birmingham—the largest local authority in the country—has a debt higher than that of Albania. It took 40 years of communist rule to achieve that debt in Albania—[Interruption.]—but it has taken only 10 years of Conservative control in Birmingham.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I remind the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) that repeated seated interventions are not helpful, particularly when they make it difficult for the Chair to hear the remarks of the hon. Member who has the Floor.

§ Mr. Vaz
rose—

§ Mr. Baldry
I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman as I have given way before.
What the people of Birmingham understand, and why I am perfectly confident that Labour will lose control of Birmingham in May, is that the amount that Birmingham city council collects by way of council tax is sufficient to pay only the interest on the council's outstanding debt. The amount that council taxpayers pay in Birmingham merely pays the interest on the outstanding debt of that local authority. People in Birmingham understand and appreciate that, and that fact will be reflected in the May elections. I have absolutely no doubt that we shall win seats and take control in Birmingham in May.
1195 Much of the debate has been about local authority corruption, which must be a matter for the auditors of the local authority involved. That is why in England we have a system involving the district auditor, the Audit Commission and the local government ombudsman. Local authorities are independent corporate organisations with powers and duties set out in statute—