| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
10.59 am
Mr. Matthew Banks: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Although, for understandable reasons,I was not able to catch your eye earlier, this is a genuine point of order.
The House knows the light touch that you use in dealing with our proceedings and that there are times when it is necessary to stick closely to the motion on the Order Paper. May I draw your attention to the fact--although I imply absolutely no criticism of you whatsoever; if there were any criticism it would be of Opposition Members--that earlier we debated ferry safety, when we heard far too much from Opposition Members on matters that relate to the Donaldson report and Pembroke but which have nothing to do with the subject of the debate initiated by the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn)?
Madam Deputy Speaker:
This is basically an Adjournment debate. Although topics are suggested,the Chair is not so strict in such debates.
Review of Local Government
11.1 am
Mr. Bob Dunn (Dartford): I am pleased to have secured this Adjournment debate and I should say at the outset that I have deliberately used the word "review"in the sense given in the Oxford English dictionary,which states that a review is
- "A general survey or reconsideration of some subject or thing."
Therefore, for me, it is a rural and urban ride--a general survey of local government in terms of the way in which it is run, and the way in which it might be run, managed and financed in the future.
In relation to that objective, my thoughts have been sharpened and focused by early-day motion 395, entitled the "John Smith memorial lecture", which was placed on the Order Paper by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen). Among other things, that motion refers to
That motion is very important in the context of a debate about the way in which local government works and might work because it clearly states a policy commitment, as given by the Leader of the Opposition on 7 February in that important lecture.
I must also say at the outset that I am delighted to see so many of my colleagues from Kent--my hon. Friends the Members for Dover (Mr. Shaw), for Mid-Kent(Mr. Rowe) and for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold)--and also a colleague who is not from Kent, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson). I am sure that they will play their part in this debate.
Early-day motion 395 is very significant because it talks about strengthening local government. But in what way is it to be strengthened? Are all the powers, duties and changes that we have introduced liable to be overturned by a Labour Government, allowing local government to run riot and to damage the interests of vulnerable people, as the Labour party has done in local government? If so, heaven help the Labour party, which has caused such damage to the people in the name of the people.
According to the early-day motion, Conservative Members are not alone in the wish to evaluate local government, but clear blue water divides us from the Labour party on this issue, as on so many others. I shall pursue that point further later in the debate. I suspect that what Conservative Members desire for local government is profoundly different from what Labour Members ultimately wish for it. We want to reduce the burden of government, while they seek to impose extra burdens on the local taxpayer. However, I anticipate my later remarks on that aspect, so perhaps hon. Members will have the patience to wait for a short while.
Local government, as the House will agree, is about local services being delivered locally by persons or agencies situated in the communities in which the policies are to take effect. The services are, of course, to be administered according to national policies laid down by Parliament and local policies and expenditure plans approved by locally elected councillors. I do not think that anyone would disagree with that rather rough and not
necessarily perfect interpretation. Ultimately, local councillors are accountable, first, to the law of the land, and secondly--and equally importantly--to the people who elected them. That is the textbook version of local government, although the true picture is slightly different, as the House will know.
I return to the urban ride with which I began my speech. I suggest that we start just across the water with the example--as a benchmark for the future--of the London borough of Lambeth. I chose that local authority entirely at random last night when I wrote this speech because it is just across the Thames from here and the nearest point from which to start my short but vivid journey.
Lambeth has a very poor record in a number of areas of service delivery. It is one of the 10 London authorities with the highest number of empty accommodation units, second only to the London borough of Hackney. Needless to say, the other nine local authorities are Labour controlled, while Lambeth, mercifully, has no overall party control--[Interruption.] I wish that the hon. Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong) would be quiet and listen: she might learn something, although she has not learnt much so far.
Lambeth has one of the worst records on the collection of council rents. It came third out of the 10 London boroughs with the worst records on collecting council rents, with £22.4 million-worth of rents in arrears.Its record was beaten only by Hackney, with arrears of£36.8 million, and Haringey with £35.4 million.
In relation to council tax, Lambeth entered a class of its own. It was first--a dubious record, indeed--out of the 10 London boroughs with the worst records on collecting council tax. In 1993-94, Lambeth managed to collect only 48.4 per cent.--less than half--of the council tax levied. The uncollected tax, which remains somewhere out in the London borough of Lambeth, amounted to £29.5 million. If hon. Members find that figure shocking, they will be even more shocked--indeed, they will be astonished--when I tell them that at 31 March 1994 a total of£84.8 million was owed in community charge, and that£12.9 million in domestic rates was not collected.
Lambeth, is of course, a traditional target for Conservative Members, and I make no apology for that. It is traditional in the House to point out areas such as Lambeth and say, "This is an example of the Labour party in government"--and it has been in government in Lambeth for many years.
I welcome the presence of my hon. Friend the Minister. I tabled a question to him recently in which I asked:
The list of 20 local authorities was produced and, lo and behold, Lambeth was ranked third--second only to Birmingham and Manchester.
Any review of local government must take account of the following facts. At 31 March 1995, Lambeth's total debt was £905 million, which equates to £3,472 per head of population. The fourth authority after Lambeth was,of course, the London borough of Islington, where the Leader of the Opposition lives. It has a total debt of£880 million, which equates to a debt of more than £5,000
per head. That list is quite significant in any review of local government and the services that are supplied and administered.
When I studied the answer from my hon. Friend the Minister, I noticed to my great surprise that 18th in the list of 20 was my own county of Kent, which is controlled by the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties, and has been since the previous county council elections in 1993. Kent county council has a total debt of £429 million, which amounts to £278 per head of population. Those on Kent county council may say that that debt is not great at £278 per head--a little baby debt.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes):
Order. Before the hon. Gentleman's baby grows up,I should point out that one of the essential features of an Adjournment debate is that the matter considered should be the responsibility of the Government. Given the way in which he is developing his speech, I am not too sure where that connection is.
Mr. Dunn:
I can help you, Madam Deputy Speaker,if the meaning of my remarks is not yet clear, because in answer to an earlier point of order, you said that an Adjournment debate is a general debate. I am leading to the precise point that will help the House out of difficulty.
Madam Deputy Speaker:
Order. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that the two points of order were separate.It is a fundamental part of an Adjournment debate that, whatever the topic under consideration, it should be a responsibility of the Government.
Mr. Dunn:
In the sense that Government enact, perhaps I can go on to make it clear where I stand. I shall conclude the first part of my argument by remindinghon. Members of the list that the Minister supplied on9 January, which is there for them to see, and which revealed that Kent county council has now joined the list of the worst run authorities in England.
If the excesses of Labour in local government were insufficient to weaken the stout-hearted, there are certain Opposition Members now demonstrably arguing the need to impose another tier of government upon us. It is still local, because it is self-evidently not national: they advocate regional government. The best model that we have had of that in the south-east, on which I know that my hon. Friend the Minister will want to comment later, is the former Greater London council, in whose abolition I played a part as a Minister. I am glad to see thatthe hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks)is present. He may want to talk about the former GLC as he is the self-appointed sole apologist and defender of it.
"a renewal of United Kingdom democracy to include strengthened local Government, democratised regional government, a Welsh assembly and a Scottish Parliament".
"which are the 20 local authorities with the highest debt levels in England; and in each case what is (a) the total amount of debt and (b) the debt per head of population."--[Official Report, 9 January 1996; Vol. 269, c. 6.]
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |