HC Deb 07 December 1981 vol 14 cc700-6

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lang.]

11.57 pm
Mr. Ian Lloyd (Havant and Waterloo)

First, I declare an interest in this subject. I am one of the large number of Members who are ratepayers of Westminster and, therefore, principally responsible for the bill that I propose to discuss this evening. I need hardly add that it is not a parliamentary Bill but a bill that is presented by the Department of the Environment to the City of Westminster for a service rendered to the citizens of London and to many others besides.

Next, I should like to make it very clear that I hope that nothing that I say this evening will be taken as implying the slightest criticism of the generosity of the Norwegian people in presenting a Christmas tree to the United Kingdom year after year, as they have done, I believe, since the end of the war. We all hope that their generosity will long continue, since it marks a strong affection and friendship between our peoples, forged in war and maintained, one hopes, indefinitely in peace.

My purpose in raising this issue is quite straightforward. It is to draw attention to three things. The first is the example of what I believe to be grotesquely wasteful expenditure. The second is to illustrate how very difficult it is to obtain information on a subject of this kind and to persuade those responsible to do something about it. The third is to suggest to the public at large that it is not enough merely to bewail the staggering total of public expenditure. What we have to do is to take a critical look at every example that comes within our personal experience or observation. Private vigilance, as I see it, is the best defence by far that the taxpayer or the ratepayer has against public extravagance or waste.

I should like now to set out the facts. The saga began when I observed by chance last year that the Christmas tree in Trafalgar Square was surrounded by several tiers of permanent scaffolding, on which about five men were working. That struck me straight away as an elaborate way of carrying out a simple task, and I decided to make some inquiries. Therefore, on 9 December 1980 I wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, drawing his attention to the scaffolding, saying: I have seldom observed so conspicuous and ridiculous a waste of public money", and that simpler methods could be used.

On 8 January 1981 the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment—then my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg)—replied that The paving in Trafalgar Square would not stand the weight of the kind of plant you have in mind and we have found from experience that the best way of putting the 650 lights on the tree and achieving a balanced appearance is by the use of scaffolding. It would be difficult to do this from a mobile crane, even if one could get one on to the site. He added that the work was undertaken by a private contractor and the bill paid by Westminster city council.

On 12 January I replied saying that I found the explanation unconvincing and that I would require very convincing proof that the underlying structure will not support the type of pneumatic type which is used on specialised vehicles that are to be seen in most modern cities all over the world today". I concluded by asking for a complete cost breakdown of the whole operation.

On 22 January my hon. Friend replied that the Department carried out the work on behalf of Westminster city council and that I should write to the leader of that council, Councillor David Cobbold, which I did.

On 19 March the chief executive of the council replied enclosing the details that I had requested but pointing out that he had had to obtain them from the Property Services Agency, a section of the Department of the Environment. The council, he said, had no control over the work, and merely paid the bill. But Mr. Witty's letter contains some interesting information, which I will summarise.

First, Mr. Witty said that the use of heavy vehicles on Trafalgar Square was forbidden, mainly because they would damage the large stone paving slabs". Secondly, he said that the strength of the structure over the subway was unknown. Thirdly, he said that the Property Services Agency had found the use of scaffolding to be the best and safest way". Fourthly, he said that it would be difficult to manoeuvre a hydraulic platform close enough to the tree to rig the lights without damaging the branches". Fifthly, he said that the PSA was required by law to provide a safe working place for the workmen"— something that I should have thought was obvious. Sixthly he said that the contractor and the agency each employed an average of six workmen, although seldom simultaneously. The contractor's men were there intermittently for 13 days and the agency's men for 10, with "other days off site". I worked out that this produced a combined total of 138 man-days, or 1,104 man-hours, to put some lights on a Christmas tree. That is roughly two man-hours per light.

The bill revealed a staggering total cost of £4,457 and disclosed, first, that it cost £320 to bring the tree by road from Felixstowe; secondly, that the Square was already boarded to distribute the load; thirdly, that the scaffolding was put up—I found this almost incredible—a second time to take down the lights. I have since wondered whether it would have been cheaper simply to pull it down and replace the bulbs.

There was one other intriguing item. The bill from the PSA, already some £1,320, was subject to a "labour surcharge" of 27 per cent., or £356, which was in its turn subject to VAT at 15 per cent. Why, one wonders, is PSA work subject to such a surcharge?

On 25 March I replied to Mr. Witty asking for a great deal more information about the nature of the restriction and for the weight distribution that would be involved by using the type of vehicle that the council had and that would be used to replace light bulbs and street lamps.

On 27 March Mr. Witty replied, with unusual promptness for this saga, that he could not give me an answer about the weight restriction in Trafalgar Square, since the Square came under the control of the Department of the Environment. Moreover, he said that the council owned no hydraulic vehicles, since it contracted the maintenance of its street lighting to the London Electricity Board. He promised to write again when he had more information on the right lines.

On 11 May I inquired whether this information had been obtained. On 13 May Mr. Witty replied saying that he had not heard from the PSA. Its reply was duly received on 28 May. In its letter to Mr. Witty the agency stated that it was unable to give a reply concerning the vehicle weight restriction and that it had inquired of our Directorate of Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings". That body being unable to answer, the matter had been referred to the agency's structural engineers. The letter concluded that The District Works office concerned would not contemplate carrying out this work from a hydraulic platform. Having established that the position was very much as I had suspected, I wrote again to my hon. Friend on 9 June, confirming my view that public money was being wasted. I stated that unless I can be convinced that there is no appropriate hydraulic platform which can be used within the defined weight restrictions, as yet unstated, I am not prepared to accept this answer. Further, I argued that the cost breakdown provided by the PSA would not stand up to critical examination by any private enterprise or organisation. At that stage I made it clear to my hon. Friend that I was not prepared to let the matter rest. That produced a considered response on 17 July, when my hon. Friend put forward a further difficulty. He pointed out that a hydraulic vehicle placed in the road in front of the National Gallery would require to be used for four days and would cost £2,700 even if the work could be done in half the time by using more men. He added: The use of a platform would increase the time needed to decorate the tree. There were also difficulties in looping the wire around the tree and it would be very difficult to manoeuvre a hydraulic platform close enough for this to be done without damaging the branches. He concluded by referring me back to Westminster city council.

On 27 July I replied that I was not convinced. First, £600 a day struck me as a ludicrous figure for hiring a hydraulic platform. Secondly, no weight restrictions were yet known or had been stated. Thirdly, it is easy to distribute the weight of vehicles; it is no engineering problem whatever. Fourthly, it was possible to save a couple of thousand pounds that would, in any case, repair a lot of flagstones, should any be broken. I saw no reason why the wiring should not be put on before the tree was hoisted. That possibility does not seem to have been examined. I suspected that no one had ever experimented with a hydraulic platform and I could see no reason why it should be either ineffective or unsafe.

Soon after Parliament reassembled on 22 October I asked in a written question whether the Department had received estimates for the work for 1981. The answer was "No". I also asked for details of the weight restrictions for structures and vehicles and received the following reply: There are no specific weight restrictions on structures"— but the reply added that vehicles are restricted in weight to a maximum of 30 cwt when laden and in number to a total of six at any one time".—[Official Report, 22 October 1981; Vol. 10, c. 189.] and that they were confined to the south-west corner of the Square.

On 16 November, in a further parliamentary question, I decided to test whether the Department had reacted to this barrage of inquiry and criticism by commissioning an independent study of the problem, possibly by a civil engineer, leading to proposals to reduce the absurd expenditure. The answer was unequivocal: No. The current arrangements are both the safest and most economic."—[Official Report, 16 November 1981; Vol. 13, c. 34.] That is not quite the end of the saga. Since the Department had obviously made no inquiries of its own, believing that all was for the best in the best of all possible worlds, I contacted Levertons, a supplier of this type of hydraulic platform vehicle. Levertons, a Unilever subsidiary and an organisation of some standing, assured me, first, that it could do the job without any difficulty. It said that it could even do the job without taking a vehicle into the middle of the Square. Secondly, it said that it would do it this year free as a demonstration, without any charge to the ratepayer or taxpayer. Thirdly, it said that even if it charged normal commercial rates it could do the job for between £1,800 and £2,000, representing a saving of well over 50 per cent.

As soon as I knew that, I advised my hon. Friend on the telephone last week and he told me that the contract for this year had already been placed. There is very little more that needs to be said, except this: in public expenditure terms the total sum involved in this exercise is small, even if it is on a most conspicuous object. But if public expenditure on all the operations covered by the PSA, on the scaffolding used on public buildings in London or throughout the United Kingdom, is subject to this type of obtuse refusal to look at new methods or new equipment, the cost for the country must run into tens of millions of pounds.

I hope that my hon. Friend will now "read the Riot Act" where it is necessary and that I shall not have to highlight the matter again. I shall inquire, in very good time next year, whether Levertons and perhaps other organisations have been invited to tender on the basis that it should be possible to erect a Christmas tree in the middle of Trafalgar Square for well under £2,000, even in London, and even with 600 bulbs. Perhaps the Department of the Environment would even offer a prize to the brightest young men in our technical colleges or universities who can think up a scheme for doing that and saving the taxpayer or ratepayer a fortune. On that note, I wish my hon. Friend, his Department and the people of London a merry Christmas.

12.9 am

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Macfarlane)

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Havant and Waterloo (Mr. Lloyd) for his kind wishes, which I immediately reciprocate and which I shall convey to my Department. Before replying to his specific questions and points, I must congratulate him on his copious study of this problem and, perhaps, paint some of the backcloth to the seasonal tradition of Trafalgar Square.

The whole House will know that it was in 1947 that the city of Oslo first presented a Norwegian spruce Christmas tree as an expression of good will and gratitude for Britain's help to Norway during the Second World War. This mirrored the custom during that war of bringing Christmas trees over from Norway not only for the late King Haakon but for all Norwegians exiled in the United Kingdom to help them to celebrate Christmas.

I am glad that my hon. Friend paid tribute to that. As my hon. Friend said, now, after 35 years, the Trafalgar Square tree has become an annual feature of the Christmas season, providing enjoyment not only for Londoners but for the many visitors to our capital. Therefore, I should like to express through the House the thanks of all for the much appreciated and continuing generosity of the people of Oslo and Norway in arranging to send a tree each year. It is a fine example of the close relations enjoyed between Britain and Norway, which extend into so many areas and I hope that the tradition will continue unsullied.

The lighting-up ceremony provides a fitting overture to our festive season and from 11 to 24 December the tree becomes the focal point of Christmas celebrations in central London, when hundreds of our people join each evening in a programme of carol singing round the tree. The arrival of the tree is eagerly awaited by the people of London, and in truth it would be very difficult to find anyone in the country who is unaware that the Norwegians provide us with this annual gift.

It excites public interest not only in the United Kingdom but in Norway.

This year the tree was cut down on 20 November, in a forest just outside Oslo, in the presence of the British ambassador and a representative of the mayor of Oslo. The tree was carefully selected by the Norwegian Forestry Commission and felled by a forestry student from Oslo university. The media in Norway covered the occasion and interviewed our ambassador. The tree arrived in London at Trafalgar Square at 6 am on 1 December and was in its place, erected at 8 am.

I come now to my hon. Friend's specific points. I look forward to attending the lighting-up ceremony on Thursday evening, the details of which are drawn up by the office of the Lord Mayor of Westminster. The official switching on of the Christmas tree lights will be performed by His Excellency the Norwegian Ambassador. Immediately after twelfth night the tree will be taken down and cleared from the Square in one day. Therefore, the tree is in position for the better part of 30 days. It is a splendid tradition and I am keen that this debate should in no way be construed as reflecting ingratitude on the part of the people of London for this annual gift from the city of Oslo.

I am pleased that my hon. Friend does not dispute the acceptance of this annual gift and the pleasure that it brings to both adults and children alike in London and Oslo. He levels his criticism at the non-acceptance of his suggestion for the use of a hydraulic platform for the purpose of decorating or dressing the tree more economically. He maintains that that would be cheaper than the current practice of erecting scaffolding around the tree from which to decorate it. I am not convinced that he is 100 per cent. correct. While I am advised that it would be possible to place a hydraulic platform on the road in front of the National Gallery, it would require a very long arm to reach the tree, which is about 95 ft from the roadway. One would have to take into consideration the fact that there could be a greater prolongation of the disruption to traffic in Trafalgar Square while the arm was in position.

Some years ago a permanent site was selected for the tree, having in mind the various features of the Square, and a permanent socket has now been made on the Square to receive the tree. If a hydraulic platform were brought on to the Square, it would be necessary to board in the route and the actual site of the platform so as to distribute the weight of the platform evenly. This is needed to protect the large stone paving slabs, and it could add greatly to the cost.

Inquiries made earlier this year showed that the cost of hiring a hydraulic platform for the four days needed to complete all the preparations would be about £2,700, I am told. That does not mean that we are not open to suggestions from contractors for improving efficiency in the exercise. This year a crane has been used successfully for moving the tree from its transport into a socket, instead of a trolley and gantry. We expect this to be cheaper.

In that connection, the House will no doubt be interested to know that the contract this year for collecting the tree from Felixtowe docks, transporting it to Trafalgar Square, erecting, dismantling and disposing of the tree, and leaving the Square in a clean and tidy condition, plus the erection of scaffolding—and I emphasise than —for rigging and removal of lights amounts to only £2,540.

Together with departmental costs incurred in decorating the tree and providing platforms for the lighting up ceremony, we expect that the final bill to Westminster city council will be between £4,200 and £4,300. That compares with £3,224 for 1977 and £4,458 for 1980. That is a reasonable figure for such a symbol between our two countries.

My hon. Friend may say that the use of a platform would reduce the time taken to decorate the tree, but I am not 100 per cent. certain that I can accept that. The one great drawback of using a hydraulic platform is that it would not be possible for several men to work on different sides and at different levels simultaneously.

My hon. Friend noted, from his study of the subject, that the length and weight of cable to take 600 bulbs made the decoration of the tree something of a problem, and that it would not be easy to manoeuvre one hydraulic platform close enough to the tree to loop the cable round without damaging the branches. My hon. Friend referred to that as a result of correspondence. I fear, therefore, that all this could add considerably to the time that we would need to have the platform on hire to achieve a pleasing effect.

There is a further complication, which could prolong the hiring period. Equipment of this sort is hired for a minimum period of one day. There is no question of having a permutation of a number of hours. The hire is for one day, two days, three days or whatever number of days is required. If there were a period of rain between the time of the draping of the cable round the tree and the putting in of the bulbs, it would not be possible to check the lighting circuits until more favourable weather conditions prevailed. Meanwhile, the platform would have to be retained in case it were needed, and be brought back for the dismantling operation.

My hon. Friend has said that a firm known to him, Levertons, would be able and willing to undertake to supply a hydraulic platform and probably offer a very substantial saving to the taxpayer as a result. If that is so, I am sure that my officials would be glad to hear from the firm for future years. My hon. Friend suggested that this year the service would be provided free. There is no specific commitment to future years. If a firm wants to submit a tender, there is no preclusion for future years. My Department will consider a list of suitable firms maintained in the Department.

I should point out that there is rather more involved in the contract work than the erection and dressing of the tree, as I said earlier. The overall saving may not be as great as expected. We are not talking about vast sums, but of about £4,300. I do not accept that the hydraulic platform is the answer to this. The scaffolding provides acceptably safe platforms all round the tree, and men can get in very close at different levels to the tree without damaging it. It also affords ease of access for any adjustments found necessary either aesthetically or practically when the circuits are tested.

My hon. Friend levels the accusation that, in his opinion as a ratepayer of Westminster—as I am—the system is wasteful, but I do not believe that that is so. What we have considered during the past 12 months has saved a modest sum of money compared with the expenditure in 1980.

Finally, I must emphasise and confirm that it is Westminster city council which pays the actual costs involved in the exercise, and the council has always professed itself more than satisfied with the service that my Department has provided over the years.

The House will welcome the tradition, which we should continue. My hon. Friend and I see eye to eye on the continuing harmony between the people of Oslo and London in this fine symbol. When he talks about the vigilance of individuals and wasteful expenditure, I am surprised that he should raise this issue. I do not know the cost of the debate, but the cost of erecting the tree and transportation provided by the people of Oslo to Felixstowe is about £4,300. That is extremely good value.

That does not mean that we are not open to suggestions. If my hon. Friend knows of any sources that he may wish to communicate to the PSA through my Department, the doors are always open. I hope that the House will feel that we have had an opportunity to debate this important subject. I believe that the tradition and the symbol are of paramount importance.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes past Twelve o'clock.