Local Government

Mr. Nick Hawkins (Blackpool, South)

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As the debate is about the conduct of local government, and as there have been so many well-publicised problems and cases of incompetence and maladministration in local government in Opposition-controlled seats such as those in Birmingham and Islington, is it in order that it should take place without Opposition Members being present?

Madam Speaker

Those are matters that must be raised during the debate.

Mr. James Clappison (Hertsmere)

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Has the Chair any power to flush out Opposition Members so that we can hear from them? The Opposition Benches are virtually empty.

Madam Speaker

Order. Let us see how the debate develops.

Mr. Clappison

Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker

No, there are no further points of order. The debate is about local government. It is not for the Chair to determine which hon. Members should be here. The debate must continue in the usual way.

Mr. Clappison

rose—

Madam Speaker

Will the hon. Gentleman resume his seat until I have finished? If he has a real point of order with which I can deal, I shall hear it.

Mr. Clappison

I spy strangers.

Madam Speaker

I am not willing to accept that motion at this stage. A leading member of the Government is here, ready to start the debate.

Mr. Clappison

rose—

Madam Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (West Derbyshire)

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Bearing in mind the fact that this is a well-publicised debate—indeed, it has been subject to a number of criticisms—I should have expected the Opposition Benches to be fuller. Can you ensure, Madam Speaker, that the annunciators are working? That 1146 is important because, if they are not, some hon. Members might not be aware that the House sits at 9.30 am on Fridays.

Madam Speaker

I always check before I come into the Chamber that the annunciators are operating. Points of order are now over.

The Minister Without Portfolio (Mr. Jeremy Hanley)

I welcome the opportunity to have this debate because it is a debate on the conduct of local government in Great Britain, which is an extremely important subject. It is one on which I and my right hon. and hon. Friends have focused our attentions over the past few months, especially during last month's local elections. We highlighted the extra cost in council tax of living under a Labour or Liberal Democrat-controlled council.

Mr. Patrick Thompson (Norwich, North)

Does my right hon. Friend recall that, only a matter of a few days ago, the Government made sure that Labour-controlled Norwich city council did not impose excessive council tax increases on the people of Norwich? Is not that the right way for the Government to proceed? Is not it a fact that the Labour councillors who attack Conservative measures are not protecting or helping council tax payers in Norwich?

Mr. Hanley

I wholly agree with my hon. Friend. There is no doubt that if Labour councils were left to their own devices, people would be charged even more than they are now. Even with capping, for band C properties Labour councils will this year charge £163 a year more and Liberal councils £112 a year more than the average for band C under Conservative-controlled administrations.

Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North)

In Ealing, the new Labour council immediately put up the council tax by 10 per cent. It said, spuriously, that it was £15 million in debt because of its predecessor, although it had inherited a balance of £12 million. It cut 300 jobs, closed old people's homes, sacked people who deliver meals to the elderly and sacked teachers. Now we discover that there is £17 million in the kitty and that the council is going to repay debts of £39 million that it incurred when it was last in control of Ealing. What a wicked and mendacious lot those people are.

Mr. Hanley

My hon. Friend—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse)

Order. Before the Minister replies, I will set out how I intend the debate to continue. It is a serious debate.

Mr. Greenway

It is a serious point.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I am sure that it is; I am not referring to the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway). I listened to the points of order to Madam Speaker at the beginning of the debate. The debate will now continue seriously and the Chair will not suffer any nonsense this morning.

Mr. Hanley

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Greenway

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. While I accept your ruling and the fact that you said in response to my incorrect sedentary intervention that you took my remarks seriously, I stress that I have made an extremely serious point about a subject that is 1147 infuriating my constituents, the constituents of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), who is present in the Chamber, and probably the rest of the country.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I have already told the hon. Member for Ealing, North that I was not referring to his intervention.

Mr. Norman Hogg (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am reluctant to raise a point of order, but as you rightly said, it is an important debate about a serious matter. Why, then, have the Government brought along their master of ceremonies rather than the—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. That is not a serious point of order either.

Mr. Hanley

It is certainly not, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall explain why I am here. I am here because I am a Cabinet Minister who sits on the ministerial Committee on Local Government, and because the issues have not been given a fair hearing. They are extremely important matters and we should turn the spotlight into the dark corners of town halls that are run by the Opposition parties. We exposed a catalogue of—

Mr. Alan Duncan (Rutland and Melton)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Opposition Members are mocking my right hon. Friend, but is it not within your power to call upon the Leader of the Opposition to make a clear statement to the House about what he knew and when he knew it?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. That is the end of the nonsense.

Mr. Hanley

I am grateful for your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I must say—particularly to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who is a fair man—

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cirencester and Tewkesbury)

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Hanley

If my hon. Friend will allow me to make a little progress, I shall willingly give way. I hope that the community at large will see that my right hon. and hon. Friends are very keen to express their views on the subject. There have been precious few opportunities to deal with the conduct of local government in Great Britain. We have turned the spotlight into the dark corners of town halls that are run by the Opposition parties. During the local government election campaign, we exposed a catalogue of endemic waste, bureaucracy, mismanagement and, yes, even corruption. However, before I refer—

Mr. David Rendel (Newbury)

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hanley

I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman and then I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown).

Mr. Rendel

Is the Minister telling us that his exposure of what has happened in Labour and Liberal 1148 Democrat-run councils and his capping of those authorities has led to the Conservative party's dropping to third place in local government?

Mr. Hanley

I shall deal directly with that matter.

I think that the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) will admit that, while we all know that democracy is an imperfect science, during local government election campaigns, concentration on the real issues is perhaps not at the forefront of many voters' minds. Today my right hon. and hon. Friends will remind the general public that, in their desire to vote as they wish in local elections—as they are perfectly entitled to do—perhaps about national matters—

Mr. Rendel

indicated assent.

Mr. Hanley

Yes, they are perfectly entitled to do that. However, there are other very serious issues that perhaps they did not concentrate on during the recent local election campaign. I look forward to hearing my right hon. and hon. Friends set out those issues today. I am sure that Opposition Members believe that it is an important subject and I look forward to their contributions also. I hope that they will answer some of the charges that my right hon. and hon. Friends will put to them.

Mr. Clifton-Brown

My right hon. Friend will be aware that last week the Government announced their capping decision in relation to Gloucestershire county council. Is he also aware that, although the Government have given a small increase to Gloucestershire county council this year, the council has cut school budgets by between 4 per cent. and 7 per cent? The budget of one rural school in my constituency has been cut by more than 20 per cent.

Is it not a disgrace for the people of Gloucestershire that the county council is running its affairs in that way? Is it not a disgrace for the people of Gloucestershire that the council has wasted £500,000 this year redoing its bills due to its failure to present a case on the cap, on top of the £500,000 that it wasted two years ago? The council wasted £1 million in shredded paper challenging the elected Government of the day. Would not that wasted £1 million go a long way towards helping the old people and the children of Gloucestershire?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Interventions should be brief and to the point.

Mr. Hanley

My hon. Friend makes a very powerful point. It is true that, throughout the local government campaign, Liberal Democrat councils and their leaders concentrated very much on the issue of education. I remember when the leader of the Liberal Democrats said that the local government election should be a referendum on education. The fact that only 15 per cent. of all councillors who were up for election had anything to do with education was neither here nor there.

Mr. McLoughlin

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Some time ago I raised a point of order with Madam Speaker and said that it was quite amazing that hardly any English Members of Parliament were present in the Chamber for a very important debate that has been long trailed. Therefore, I beg to move, That strangers do withdraw.

1149 Notice having been taken that strangers were present, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 143 (Withdrawal of strangers from House), put forthwith the Question, That strangers do withdraw:—

The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. Norman Hogg (seated and covered)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it right and is it in order for the public and the press to be cleared from the Galleries of the House of Commons on a day when we are discussing local government and, yes, some serious problems in local government?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I cannot help the hon. Gentleman. He may have his own views, but it is a matter for the House to decide.

Mr. Frank Dobson (Holborn and St. Pancras)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would like the debate to proceed as quickly as possible, but was it in order for the 1150 Government—having set the business for this morning—to deploy Government Whips in the calling of a Division and the telling of both Lobbies in an effort to clear the Galleries and to stop the press reporting the debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. That matter is not for the Chair.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes (Harrow, West)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is trying to mislead the House. The fact is that we need to flush out how few Labour Members are present.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. That was not a point of order.

Mr. Charles Hendry (High Peak)

rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I make it clear to the House that I will have no further bogus points of order. This is a serious debate and it is about time that we got on with it.

Mr. Hendry

On a separate point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

It had better be genuine.

Mr. Hendry

It is, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) rose to the Dispatch Box, I thought that he was going to apologise for saying on the radio this morning that the Prime Minister had lied to the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. That matter is not for the Chair either.

Mr. Hanley

Before I was rudely interrupted, I was dealing with a point raised by the hon. Member for Newbury. The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) had said that the local government campaign should be a referendum on education. I was explaining that only 15 per cent. of all councillors had anything to do with education. The campaign led by the right hon. Member for Yeovil was a disgrace. Every Conservative education authority met the teachers' pay claim in full. The only people who have been playing political football with the teachers have been the Liberal Democrats, aided and abetted by the party that is on the same wing—the Labour party. Conservative education authorities met their claims in full. It will be interesting to see how many teachers there are this autumn. I believe that the number will not be as low as the scare stories put about by the Opposition.

Before I deal in detail with many of the disturbing stories that have appeared in the press and which Labour has found somewhat inconvenient, I shall address two points raised this morning, which Labour has been making consistently since 4 May. I have heard it said that the results of the local government elections suggested that voters rejected the better value of Conservative councils. That is nonsense. The small number of people who turned out to vote did not, regrettably, do so on local issues, but we proved that Conservative councillors produce better value and services. I have heard it said also that Labour's appalling record in local government was in some way endorsed by the electorate on 4 May. Nothing could be further from the truth. Even a cursory look at the figures shows that only 18 per cent. of all people entitled to vote in the local elections turned out to support the new "New Labour" party—the all-singing, all-dancing, all-image Labour party. That can 1151 hardly give great comfort to the Labour party. I do not call that 18 per cent. an endorsement. Instead, I call it damning with faint praise. I regret that many of the electorate stayed at home on 4 May. Those who cast their vote without considering the local implications will pay dearly under their new councils.

Local government is important to people. It is—

Mr. Hendry

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in one ward in my constituency the Labour party won with 18 per cent. of the electorate's vote? Does not that show that 82 per cent. of the electorate did not vote Labour? It makes rather hollow Labour's claim of victory.

Mr. Hanley

My hon. Friend emphasises my point. Over the next two years we must encourage those who stayed at home to concentrate on the real issues. The debate will bring out those issues, which were hidden during the local government election campaign by national factors.

Mr. Gordon McMaster (Paisley, South)

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that in April, during the local government elections in Scotland, when a Conservative voter strolled to the polls and on his way stopped to buy a national lottery ticket, he was statistically more likely to win a cash prize than get a Tory council?

Mr. Hanley

The hon. Gentleman has made a jolly good crack. I look forward to his substantive speech. I was told earlier in the week that if the hon. Gentleman were to win the national lottery, he would still send out begging letters.

I much regret that local issues were not concentrated upon during the local government campaign. The media agreed with that. I much regret that some people will pay considerably more for local services, which will be put at risk under new Labour or the Labour-Liberal councils that have been imposed upon them.

As I said, local government is important to people. Indeed, it is vital. One fifth of all Government expenditure is spent by local authorities. Central Government support through the revenue support grant is roughly equivalent to 10p on the standard rate of income tax. It is vital, therefore, that we should concentrate on local government. It is not often that we concentrate on 20 per cent. of total Government expenditure in one debate.

The proper conduct of local government means that resources should be well used. It means also that priorities should be set according to genuine need. It means further that waste and bureaucracy should be cut. Political correctness should be kept out. Abuses of public money should be rooted out.

Mr. McLoughlin

My right hon. Friend is right that local government represents a vast amount of the public services that are provided. If extra money was made available during the year, especially for education, is my right hon. Friend aware that many of his right hon. and hon. Friends would wish to ensure that that money went straight into schools and not to local authorities? A number of us believe that some authorities have abused their position over the past years by not ensuring that moneys earmarked for education go into our schools. Will he take that on board during the discussions that will take place over the coming months?

Mr. Hanley

Yes. My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. Many is the time that money given to Labour and Liberal councils for certain purposes has been plundered to serve other purposes. I hope that my hon. Friends will set out clearly during the debate what has happened, especially in councils where Liberal Democrats aided the Labour party in doing exactly what my hon. Friend described.

Mr. Michael Stephen (Shoreham)

My right hon. Friend referred to political correctness. Does he agree that that is a feature of loony left councils that are run by Labour and Liberal Democrats, which the population finds most offensive? Is he aware, for example, that a registration certificate was refused to a child minder because she owned a golliwog? Is he—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Where?"] Is he aware that the "Ugly Duckling" has been banned because it has racist overtones? Is he aware—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"]

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Interventions must be brief and to the point.

Mr. Hanley

I thank my hon. Friend. I am aware of those and many other stories. I hope that they will emerge during the debate.

The Conservative Government have made great strides in ensuring that the climate within which local government operates is one of efficiency and propriety, which substantially delivers our objectives. I pay tribute to my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of the Environment, which tries extremely hard to improve relations between central and local government. Nothing that we mention today is in any way designed to try to ruin the present relationship. Indeed, the very reverse is the position. Considerable progress has been made in building relationships between central and local government. We are trying to ensure that the Labour party recognises that inefficiencies are all too common. They are, of course, inconvenient when it comes to the new Labour image.

The Government have delivered a legislative framework that is designed to achieve gains in efficiency and to end abuses in local government. The establishment of the Audit Commission is among the most important of all the Government's initiatives. Recent Audit Commission reports have illustrated once again that the scope for efficiency savings in local government is far from exhausted. The commission's report on council tax collection last year showed that £100 million could be saved. Its report in January told us that during the six years after 1987, local authorities increased non-manual staffing by about 90,000. The commission reported that £500 million could be saved through the better management of staffing. We, the Government, know very well where savings could be made. Front line first is not the philosophy of Labour or Liberal Democrat councils. Jobs for the boys is much more to their liking. Cost cutting is not in their vocabulary.

Mr. George Robertson (Hamilton)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hanley

Yes. I am sure, however, that the hon. Gentleman will speak later.

Mr. Robertson

On cost cutting, a conservative estimate of the cost to the country of introducing the poll 1153 tax was £14 billion. That money was wasted. Taxpayers' money went down the drain. Has not the right hon. Gentleman a word of apology to offer the nation for that waste?

Mr. Hanley

The hon. Gentleman may not have noticed, but we have had a general election since then. The Conservative party was endorsed. We introduced a system of raising local government money called the council tax, which has proved to be most successful. The poll tax is dead and gone. In the general election, the Conservative party was endorsed for that.

Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North)

Will my right hon. Friend remind Opposition Members that it was not Conservative councillors who recommended that the poll tax, as it was known—the community charge—should not be paid? That recommendation was made by Opposition councillors, councillors of the Labour party in Scotland and of the Scottish National party.

Mr. Hanley

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point.

Mr. Norman Hogg

It is not true.

Mr. Walker

It is true.

Mr. Hanley

The attitude of Opposition Members to savings in local government was set out clearly in their so-called policy document, which was issued in January. At the previous election, the Labour party wanted to abolish the Audit Commission. It clearly said so. Now it wants to give it a special, new responsibility to investigate the 10 councils with the lowest council tax levels, to find out why they are out of line. In effect, the Labour party is saying, "Why are you not spending more?" That is the only weapon that it is using in its war on waste.

There is an enormous flaw in Labour's cunning plan. The lowest council taxes have been levied by Conservative councils. If the auditors acted as Labour would wish, they would come up with one certain way of getting better services for lower taxes, and that is voting Conservative. Every Conservative council produces the very best value for the council tax payers.

In addition to the Audit Commission's work to promote efficiency, the Government established the Widdecombe inquiry. We acted under the Local Government Act 1986 and subsequent legislation to curb the propaganda that was being paid for through the rates.

Mr. Stephen

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in West Sussex, the Liberal-controlled county council and the Liberal-controlled Adur district council wasted tens of thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money on saving their political skins from the recommendations of the boundary commissioners?

Mr. Hanley

My hon. Friend makes another point. I hope that my hon. Friends will make speeches and bring out such points. I do not know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether you have noticed, as we have here, that there seems to be almost a carnival spirit on the Opposition Benches. That is a most remarkable approach to these serious issues. We are talking about serious issues and about a number of patterns or trends in Labour councils.

The virus of political correctness, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) referred, has changed and spread. Political correctness is now more disguised. It avoids the obvious form of partisan politics. 1154 It has shifted to the politics of pressure groups and of radical minority groups. It peddles bogus or exaggerated grievances for its own political purposes.

That political correctness—that PC world—is inhabited by too many councillors of the Opposition parties. It began as a joke, it turned into a farce and it has now led to tragedy. Labour-run Hackney is a clear example—as clear an example as any. I accept fully that discrimination is unacceptable; I do not believe that anyone can question my record on that subject. I hate discrimination in all its forms and, like all Conservative Members, I loathe the positive discrimination that patronises women and members of ethnic minorities, and that is now embedded in the Labour party's selection procedures. Labour Members have gone quiet.

Four years ago, it was reported that Hackney council had banned staff from calling female colleagues "girls". That was not a joke; I am afraid not. It is an insinuation that people cannot deal in their relationships with others unless there is a rulebook to govern them. Last month, reports showed that Hackney was being forced to inquire into allegations that fraud was widespread in the council, because politically correct employment policies meant that no disciplinary action could be taken against employees from ethnic minorities who were involved, it is alleged, in benefit and grant fraud. It is a tragedy for Hackney residents and taxpayers alike, and it is clear that the political correctness virus is spreading.

Lady Olga Maitland (Sutton and Cheam)

Is my right hon. Friend aware that political correctness was responsible for the most appalling child abuse in Islington and that the leader of Islington council at that time was none other than the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge)? Does he agree that it is appropriate that she should give a full explanation as to how she could allow those poor children to be so tragically treated?

Mr. Hanley

I agree with my hon. Friend and I am sure that the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) will make her speech later. Indeed, this debate is an opportunity for her to explain the policies.

Mr. Dobson

As the right hon. Gentleman knows so much about Hackney, will he confirm that, as a result of the council's action against fraud, 110 staff have been dismissed or have resigned because disciplinary action was threatened, 24 of them have been successfully prosecuted, four have received prison sentences, and two have received suspended sentences? While we are on the subject of Hackney, perhaps he can explain how it has come about that the immigration department, a part of the Home Office, is in unlawful possession of 600 African names from the payroll in Hackney, in clear contravention of the Data Protection Act 1988? The Secretary of State for the Home Department has yet to explain that unlawful activity on the part of his staff.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order.

Mr. Stephen

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The occupant of the Chair does not need reminding. That was a long intervention.

Mr. Hanley

It was a long intervention, and I am certain that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras 1155 will make his speech a little later, but I rather took what he said as a plea of guilty. He is admitting that all those things have been happening in Hackney. It was a breathtaking acknowledgement that what we have been saying has been happening in Hackney over the years has actually happened. Belatedly, he is now trying to get his act together.

Mr. Dobson

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hanley

Certainly. The hon. Gentleman is rising like a salmon to the fly.

Mr. Dobson

I have never thought of myself as being as elegant as a salmon. The right hon. Gentleman levelled an accusation against Hackney council that it was not taking action against fraud, but it has been taking such action. If he had checked, and if he had been a Minister in the Department of the Environment, he could have been properly briefed that, for four successive years, the district audit or has commended Hackney for its action against fraud.

Mr. Hanley

I have nothing further to add to what I said earlier. I am absolutely certain that the Hackney case will come up during speeches by Conservative Members and, no doubt, by Opposition Members, but the hon. Gentleman seems to have lost his smile. He is looking a little angry. Perhaps the reason is not just that he is now hooked on the Hackney fly, but that he recognises that we shall refer to council after council today, and he will do no more than admit that illegalities, corruption, waste and mismanagement have been going on and that it is the council tax payer who has lost.

We have Birmingham, Greenwich, Humberside and Ealing, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) referred, and where the council intended to ask people applying to a youth centre what their sexuality happened to be. Why? The list goes on. In Avon, for example, the funding of the local scouts, as the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras knows so well, was withdrawn, and instead £2,300 was given in grants to the lesbian-bisexual women's group. That is just typical of the priorities that Labour councils have.

Mr. Dobson

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hanley

No, I will not give way. I will make a little progress.

Mr. Dobson

The Minister is lying.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Did I hear the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) say that the Minister was lying?

Mr. Dobson

You did and I withdraw, but the Minister was not telling the truth. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The occupant of the Chair is quite capable of dealing with these exchanges without the help of Back-Bench Members on both sides of the House. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras may think that that is sufficient, but I—

Mr. Dobson

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should not for a moment wish to embarrass you. I shall withdraw, but I shall spell out the truth in my speech.

Mr. Hanley

I should like to know what it is that the hon. Gentleman believes that I have said that he disagrees with.

Mr. Dobson

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hanley

I shall give way if the hon. Gentleman tells me exactly what it is that I have said that he believes so strongly has misled the House, because I certainly disagree. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The House must settle down. As I understood it, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras has already withdrawn his remarks, so I do not know why it is necessary for him to explain them, but if the Minister wishes to give way, he will do so.

Mr. Dobson

He is not a Minister actually; well he is—Minister Without Portfolio. Both today and at the beginning of the local election campaign, he said that Avon council had withdrawn its £6,000 annual funding for the Scout Association. The fact is that that council gave £37,000 to scouts and guides in Avon in the year concerned.

Mr. Hanley

I was referring to a report in The Times, no less, the journal of record. [Interruption.] I hope that the proprietor of The Times will notice the way in which Opposition Members refer to that newspaper. That report appeared on 2 March 1995, so it is very much up to date. I assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have chapter and verse on all the allegations that will be made here today. I am grateful. I can see why the Labour party started its local election campaign only two and a half weeks before polling day: it was embarrassed and ashamed of its record in local government.

I was mentioning some of the councils, such as Birmingham, Greenwich, Humberside and Ealing. How about Manchester, Kirklees, Newcastle upon Tyne and Nottingham, where a central equality unit monitors the work of all other departments, and where a helpline has been established to help the victims of wolf whistling? That is something on which a great amount of money should be spent.

Lady Olga Maitland

It is extraordinary that compensation should be given to victims of wolf whistling. I would be rather thrilled if I was wolf-whistled.

Mr. Hanley

One day the Labour party, with its political correctness and because it has reversed almost all its policies over the past 10 years, may set up helplines for all those who are the victims of not being wolf-whistled. No doubt it is but a matter of time under new Labour.

Mr. Dobson

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hanley

No, although I may do so later. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] No, I want to continue my catalogue of Labour councils' irresponsibility.

Dr. John Reid (Motherwell, North)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hanley

Not at this moment. I want to give a few more examples. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] No, I intend—

Dr. Reid

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on the subject of wolf whistling?

Mr. Hanley

Of course—we are dying to know why the hon. Gentleman and his party regard it as such a serious and heinous crime.

Dr. Reid

We do not regard it as a serious and heinous crime. The right hon. Gentleman is, due to past 1157 experience, a master on the question of sexual discrimination. Can he tell us the cost of the wolf whistling unit? Does it bear any relationship to the more than £50 million that he stupidly and foolishly cost the defence budget because of his rampant discrimination against pregnant women? Does not that put the issue into context?

Hon. Members

Answer.

Mr. Hanley

I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will agree that discussing the policy of the Ministry of Defence is hardly in tune with this debate. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman knows that I will willingly debate with him the Ministry of Defence or any other issue that he might care to name, but not on this occasion. I have so much more to tell him about Labour local authorities.

How about Southwark, Harlow and Hillingdon? What about Liverpool and Wakefield? I do not know whether my hon. Friends are aware, but all "Men at work" signs in Wakefield have been replaced, at vast public expense, with "People at work" signs—[Interruption.]—according to a newspaper report on 2 March 1995. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The House must settle down. This debate is rapidly becoming a farce. [Interruption.] Order. The House will settle down and get on with serious debate.

Mr. Hanley

I know that you and I, Mr. Deputy Speaker, greatly enjoy "Dad's Army". To quote one of the characters, "They don't like it up 'em." Labour Members deride us for exposing the activities of their Labour councillors.

Islington—the home borough of the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair)—illustrates most painfully the dangers of political correctness. Islington council, under the then leadership of the hon. Member for Barking, was accused in an independent report of being so concerned about offending black or gay staff that it failed fully to investigate allegations of abuse in children's homes. That is a serious accusation, which should not be treated lightly. I hope that the hon. Lady will put her side of the case later. Indeed, I hope that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras will also refer to that disgraceful episode.

Political correctness to such an extreme has arisen directly from a culture of subservience to interest groups. Most prominent among the interests that Labour councils serve are the trade unions. This Government have legislated for compulsory competitive tendering in many areas of council service provision. Councils that have embraced that opportunity have delivered savings for taxpayers and quality services for customers. Labour councils have fought against that at every turn.

Indeed, on the very day that the right hon. Member for Sedgefield said that his was now a new Labour party, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) said, in a speech broadcast live and in its entirety by the BBC, "Don't worry brother, we're going to scrap compulsory competitive tendering"—

Mr. Dobson

Yes, we are.

Mr. Hanley

That proves that the Labour party puts the providers of council services ahead of those for whom those services are provided, as the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East said. In other words, the right 1158 hon. Gentleman is saying that he does not want the best value for money; he wants to ensure that the boyos get the jobs.

Mr. Dobson

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hanley

No, the hon. Gentleman will have his opportunity later.

We must remember that that was the same day, the same 24 hours, when the deputy leader of the Labour party said that there would be a new strikers charter giving strikers privileges the like of which were not seen even under Michael Foot.

We cured this country of what used to be known as the British disease—strikes everywhere. Working days lost through strikes are now only 1 per cent. of what they were when we took office. The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East is a carrier of the British disease and he wants to infect industry, the public and council services all over again. The reason why 40 per cent. of all inward investment in Europe comes to the United Kingdom—just one member of the European Union—is that we have cured the British disease, we give better value, we are able to improve exports, and those who come here get a good return for their money because of the industrial climate that now prevails and which the Labour party would put at risk.

Even today, as the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras has just confirmed, the Labour party remains committed to the abolition of CCT, despite the fact that a study from the Institute of Local Government Studies showed that CCT led to average savings of 7 per cent. of contract value, often combined with quality gains. Even the Labour leader of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, Sir Jeremy Beecham, wrote that compulsory competitive tendering has brought some cost effectiveness and genuine saving which might not otherwise have been achieved. That is to be thrown out in favour of the trade unions. It is not the new Labour party; it is the same old party that gives privileges to the unions. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras has confirmed that again today.

Mr. McLoughlin

Is my right hon. Friend aware of an answer that I received a couple of weeks ago from the Department for Education, which shows that, over the past seven years, the amount of money spent on school meals in Hereford and Worcester—which is under Conservative control—was £12 million, while in Derbyshire it was £115 million? Should not that money have been made available to build more new schools?

Mr. Hanley

I agree with my hon. Friend. I want all hon. Members to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate, so I shall not accept any further interventions from either side. [Interruption.] I am sure that hon. Members will wish to make their own speeches.

Why does the Labour party oppose the clear route to quality services at a lower cost? It is because its trade union masters tell it so. Is it any wonder that in the past two years, the Government have had to take action against 11 Labour councils for anti-competitive behaviour? Many councils use CCT well. Many councils take their decisions without kow-towing to trade union representatives. Many councils are not subject to the abuses of political 1159 correctness or bureaucratic excess in support of left-wing causes—but many others are, like Sheffield, where the leader has declared that his council is committed to keeping council services in-house whenever we can. Where those services are kept in-house, a pattern emerges of dominant Labour or Lib-Lab control, of trade union dominance in council affairs, of political correctness and of wasted spending on bloated self-justifying bureaucracies, even though the needs of many of the residents for front-line services are very great.

Of increasing concern to many people is that that pattern of misconduct in some parts of local government is growing, both in the number of councils caught up in such behaviour and in the seriousness of the consequences. The examples multiply. Labour and Liberal Democrat councils spend tens of thousands of pounds on promoting trade union activity among their own staff, in some cases at the same moment as they claim that they cannot fund teachers' pay settlements. Labour councillors in Mid-Glamorgan voted themselves a fourfold increase in their allowances. It was only when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stung the Leader of the Opposition that this was real Labour, not the ad man's image of new Labour, that he had the wit to do something about it.

And another thing: criminal elements are trying to move in and exploit the failings of some Labour councillors. The Labour leader in North Tyneside said: criminals are trying to win influence in local politics". Nor, regrettably, is the corruption and malpractice within the Labour party confined to the activities of criminal infiltrators. Serious allegations and investigations into fraud and other forms of corruption have taken place in several Labour councils within the past two years.

At this time, the Labour party is conducting internal investigations into the conduct of its own members in no fewer than eight constituencies, many of them involving the conduct of councillors. That is from the party of which the only national policy is to demand independent public inquiries into every aspect of Government behaviour.

In four Birmingham constituencies—Ladywood, Perry Barr, Sparkbrook and Small Heath—a closed Labour internal inquiry is investigating allegations that up to £2 million of urban renewal grant has been used to buy votes in parliamentary selection contests. In Bradford, Manchester, Tower Hamlets, Leicester and Paisley, the Labour party is investigating its own activities behind closed doors. In three more Labour areas—Corby, South Tyneside and Bracknell—Labour members are suspended following serious allegations. For example, in South Tyneside the council has been torn apart by factions within the ruling Labour group. Labour councillors have accused their own colleagues of discriminating against certain wards in the allocation of funds.

In six Labour-run areas—Paisley, North Tyneside, Greater Manchester, Liverpool, North Shields and Tameside—police investigations are on-going. In Tameside, for example, Greater Manchester police are investigating £2 million of losses made by a company set up by the Labour council, the board of which was full of Labour politicians. The district auditor commented that their appointment had more to do with political affiliations than skill or expertise. 1160 Glyn Ford, a Labour Member of the European Parliament, said that the voters of Tameside deserved an apology. They have yet to get one.

The House will know that the very serious allegations that have been levelled against the Labour party in Monklands are almost breathtaking. Nepotism, discrimination in capital spending and failure to declare interests have all been alleged. Professor Black, who has prepared the report, has apparently passed on certain complaints to the Crown Office. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has acted to set up a statutory inquiry. The Labour party has failed to act.

Mr. Norman Hogg

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hanley

The hon. Gentleman may make his speech in his own time. He has had two years, if not three, to explain the position in Monklands.

Mr. Hogg

The right hon. Gentleman has been prattling on for 45 minutes.

Mr. Hanley

One of the reasons is the hon. Gentleman's interventions.

An internal inquiry was held in Monklands—

Mr. Hogg

rose—

Mr. Hanley

I am not surprised that there are diversions coming from the Labour party when we mention Monklands.

Mr. Hogg

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is the worst speech that we have ever heard. It is perfectly obvious why this Minister has no portfolio. He is not—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Hogg

I was coming to the point of order.

Mr. Hanley

It is interesting, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I understand that the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) wants to continue with the point of order because he has not got to the genuine point of order.

Mr. Hogg

The point of order is this. The right hon. Gentleman has attacked Opposition Members for creating diversions, but it was Conservative Members who called a Division on a very dubious point—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Everything that has taken place in the House this morning has been in order. If it had not been, the Chair would have ruled it out of order.

Mr. Hanley

I voted against the motion that was moved from Conservative Benches. I notice that the hon. Gentleman did not do so.

Mr. Hogg

I did not.

Mr. Hanley

Well, is not that surprising? Perhaps he supported it.

I had a small bet with a gentleman from the fourth estate that as soon as I mentioned Monklands, there would be a stream of interventions from Opposition Members. The Labour party had an internal Scottish inquiry on Monklands prepared in 1993. It took no action on it. Two 1161 and a half years ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) exposed some of the goings-on in Monklands. Yet in January 1993, the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) called it muck-raking. When my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Malone), in his then capacity as deputy chairman of the Conservative party, exposed the malpractices in Monklands in documented form, an unnamed Labour party spokesman described his attack as desperate and dismissed it out of hand.

As long ago as February 1994, 81 Opposition right hon. and hon. Members signed an early-day motion in which they described attacks on Monklands as smear tactics. Have those 81 withdrawn their defence of the indefensible? It seems not. Conservative Members will carry on exposing the corruption and malpractices of Labour councils.

Lady Olga Maitland

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Hanley

No. I am sorry. I have said that I will not accept any more interventions, even from my hon. Friend.

The Labour party always cries smear, but unlike Labour Members, we shall not treat as proven that which is merely alleged. We shall not treat as systematic that which is unique. But we shall expose to full view the pattern of abuse of public money and public office that sadly has followed only too often and only too surely when Labour dominates council business and trade unions dominate Labour politics. That is the reality of Labour in power. It is a deeply unwelcome feature of local government.

The British people thought that Labour had banished the loony left. They heard the former right hon. Member for Islwyn, Mr. Neil Kinnock, decry Labour councillors for playing politics with people's lives. Yet that is exactly what Labour councillors do today. The same old Labour party in its new politically correct clothing is worming its way back, under cover of Labour dominance, into some of our urban areas.

The Conservative Government have created strong agencies that tackle malpractices by means of disclosure and propriety requirements for councillors, audit and reporting requirements, performance comparisons and requirements for competitive tendering. Conservative councillors are fighting abuse.

Liberal Democrats make pacts with Labour. The Labour party clamours for Lord Nolan to investigate every facet of public life except local government. The Government can be trusted to fight misconduct in local government wherever it arises. I only wish that we could say the same of the Labour party.

Mr. Frank Dobson (Holborn and St. Pancras)

Given that the debate is about local government, one would have expected that, as no fewer than three Secretaries of State have responsibility for local government—the Environment Secretary for local government in England, the Scottish Secretary for local government in Scotland and the Welsh Secretary, whoever he may be, for local government in Wales—at least one of them could have dragged their weary limbs into the Chamber today. Instead of that, the debate has been opened by someone who, for the purposes of the debate, has the alias of 1162 Minister Without Portfolio, but is in fact the chairman of the Tory party—a party in the middle of a leadership campaign.

I suspect that we are all uncertain as to who may or may not win the first round of that election, whether there will be a second round and so on, but there is one thing of which we can all be pretty certain. The right hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) will not be doing his job for much longer. He stands up at the Dispatch Box as if making an appearance at the last chance saloon. He is making a last public performance. He is a cross between Dame Nellie Melba and Captain Oates before he walked out.

One could reasonably claim that the right hon. Gentleman is well qualified to open the debate because he was in charge of the Tories' last local election campaign. We have heard from the right hon. Gentleman that the public got it wrong. In some way or other, the fact that they voted Labour was all a mistake. It rather reminds me of Mark Twain, who said, "They tell me Wagner's music is better than it sounds." It looks as if the Minister is saying that the election results were better than the figures show. As result of the chairman of the Tory party masterminding the campaign in the local government elections this year, the Tories now control not a single council in Scotland—despite having gerrymandered the boundaries to keep control. The Tories did the same in Wales, and they control no council in Wales.

In this year's district elections, the Tories managed to hang on to control of just eight councils in the whole of England. We used to talk about the "Tory shires", but we discovered in the county council elections that that had been reduced to the singular Tory shire of Buckinghamshire. We can add that one shire county to the eight district councils and the five London boroughs which the Tories control.

The Secretary of State—sorry, the Minister Without Portfolio and chairman of the Tory party—talked this morning of 13 Labour local authorities where the police are conducting investigations.

Mr. Hanley

indicated dissent.

Mr. Dobson

What figure did he give?

Mr. Hanley

Six.

Mr. Dobson

That means that the Tories control about twice as many councils as the number of Labour councils that the right hon. Gentleman claims are being investigated.

Mr. Hanley

The hon. Gentleman is misquoting me. There are six police inquiries on-going—in Lambeth, North Tyneside, Bradford, Tameside, Paisley and North Shields. Those are in addition to the conviction which occurred recently in Derbyshire. I said that Labour was carrying out 13 internal investigations, which means that the Labour party must know that something is very wrong.

Mr. Dobson

Let me try to show the scale of the problem. Labour controls 230 local authorities. It is apparently conducting internal investigations into party matters in 13 of them, and the police are involved in six. Let me explain to the famous Minister Without Portfolio what is happening in the five London authorities that his party controls. The district auditor has said that the right 1163 hon. Gentleman's Tory friends are guilty—he has not said that there are allegations against them—of misplacing £31 million, and is investigating the fiddling of other moneys leading to a total of more than £100 million.

The district auditor, who was appointed by the Government, has said that Wandsworth council was breaking the law on homelessness and was losing money for the people of Wandsworth. There was rampant fraud in Bromley a couple of years ago, and my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) will no doubt point out that a great deal of fraud is being committed in Brent. Out of five Tory-controlled councils in London, four have been done over either by the district auditor or the police.

If the right hon. Gentleman is not content with that, I can add that the Tories have managed to get involved in Lambeth, where a Tory councillor and his Tory friend have just been found guilty of working a benefit fraud. If they had been Labour people, the story would have been all over the right hon. Gentleman's speech. Somehow, however, it did not get a mention.

Mr. Ken Livingstone (Brent, East)

Is my hon. Friend aware that, of the 33 Conservative councillors in Brent, five are being investigated by the police, two by the ombudsman and five by the district auditor, while six are facing internal investigations? I wrote to the chairman of the Conservative party to say that I was concerned about corruption in Brent, but the right hon. Gentleman took no action and suggested that I told the police. I did tell the police, who are doing a lot of work.

Mr. Dobson

I said that my hon. Friend would spell out in more detail what is happening in Brent.

Dr. Reid

I believe that the allegations of benefit fraud in Lambeth concern Tory councillors who were taking money under false pretences without doing any work. Does my hon. Friend realise that if they had classed themselves as "workers without portfolio" they would have been entitled to the money, despite doing no work?

Mr. Dobson

They would not have been the first Tories to take money under false pretences.

Mr. David Wilshire (Spelthorne)

I have tried not to join in the shenanigans thus far because I believe that there are some serious points to be made. However, I want to raise a serious point with the hon. Gentleman for the avoidance of doubt. I understand what he is trying to do by way of pointing to the 13 councils that are still Conservative-controlled. Will he clarify that he is not suggesting that all 13—including my local council, Spelthorne borough council—are, by definition, involved in any way in these shenanigans, as my local council would wish to have that cleared up?

Mr. Dobson

I shall come to that matter, but I wish to point out that I think that the bulk of councils and councillors of all political persuasions try their best to do a decent job for the people who elected them. It is preposte